Recording Village Life: A Coptic Scribe in Early Islamic Egypt

Citation preview

Page viii →Page ix →

Preface The foundations for this study lie in 2003, when I was deciding on a subject for my master’s degree in Egyptology at the University of Liverpool. Having studied Coptic for two years as part of the degree, I intended to pursue a topic in this field but, at that time, did not want to do anything overtly focused on religious or monastic material. As a solution to this desire, Mark Collier, who became my supervisor for the entirety of my graduate studies, introduced me to the body of nonliterary documents from Djeme1 published in 1912 by Walter Crum and Georg Steindorff in Koptische Rechtsurkunde des achten Jahrhunderts aus DjГЄme (Theben). This corpus shed new light on an area of Egypt that I had come to know well as an Egyptology undergraduate, western Thebes (opposite modern Luxor), with its temples, its tombs, and the village Deir el-Medina, offering a wealth of material for New Kingdom Egypt. The Coptic texts breathed new life into this region, painting it—or repainting it—as vividly as did the pharaonic material about a millennium and a half earlier. My master’s dissertation examined the sale documents belonging to one man from the village, Aaron son of Shenoute. This microstudy of the Djeme corpus raised many questions and thoughts concerning life in ancient Thebes at this point, within the village and through its connection with the other communities in this region. As a result, the initial topic for my doctoral research was an investigation of the relationship between the village Djeme and the monastery of Apa Phoibammon at Deir el-Bahri. However, once I started to Page x →consult the original manuscripts themselves, the majority of which are located at the British Library in London, my work assumed a decidedly papyrological direction. On one hand, this became my first real experience—at least on such a large scale—of working with original papyri (rather than facsimiles of manuscripts, whether Coptic or hieratic, in older phases of the Egyptian language). It was my first experience of dealing with the immediacy of the documents themselves, of the reality of the written word, and of the level of variation found between the different writers responsible for their production. At the same time, it led to the realization that while the original editions are extremely good—and while the amount of material that Crum not only was able to read but was able to work through and publish is truly staggering—they are in need both of revision, in some places, and also of modern editions. The first year of my doctoral research therefore became an endeavor to restudy and reedit the Djeme papyri. The enormity of that task and its impracticality for the confines of a doctoral dissertation were brought to my attention soon afterward.2 It was pointed out, as an alternative for my study, that one individual occurred again and again in the texts that I was reediting, Aristophanes son of Johannes. From that point, Aristophanes became the focus of my work. My dissertation, completed and examined in 2008, became a detailed study of how he worked, focusing especially on his use of language and his paleography. In the years that followed, it became clear how fixated I had become on the nature of his words rather than on what the words conveyed about the world of which he was part. Initially, I aimed to combine a complete reedition of his texts with a linguistic and paleographic analysis of his writing and with a study of the documents themselves. With this in mind, I contacted Trianos Gagos about the possibility of publishing this study in the series New Texts from Ancient Cultures at the University of Michigan Press, to which he responded with his usual great enthusiasm. However, this became a monstrous undertaking, and there were many times when I could not see the woods through the trees. My main questions became for whom I was writing this, who would actually be interested in the different sections, and what utility this writing bore—all questions that I am sure many academics have encountered before. Immediately, I decided to halt work on the manuscript itself and turn to other questions that I had encounteredPage xi → along the way, concerning particular villagers and also documents written elsewhere in Egypt. The main turning point in my research came when I read Arthur Verhoogt’s 1997 study Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: The Doings and Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120–110 B.C.). While that study is far removed from mine in time and place and in the nature of the documents considered, the essence of what I wanted to convey is contained there. As a result, I undertook a drastic revision of my own work, the result of which lies here. While the focus of my study remains on Aristophanes, I have moved away from an analysis based solely on the nature of his own scribal practice and have focused more

on what, for whom, and why he wrote. As a result, I hope to have portrayed life in Djeme from a different perspective, showing connections that may not be obvious when looking at individuals or families. In doing this, I feel that I have returned somewhat to the original, more historical aims of my thesis, incorporating everything that I was able to learn from close, autopic study of the primary sources. The six chapters that resulted from this new direction fall into three main sections herein. After the introduction (chapter 1), chapters 2 and 3 bring together Aristophanes’ documents. In total, I know of 142 documents that he wrote and a further six in which he acted as amanuensis, which cover a period of 724 to 756. Chapter 2 collects this material together, looking closely at the dates—absolute and relative—of the texts and then dividing the material into its constituent archives, as far as they can be identified. What remains of my original study of Aristophanes’ physical writing is in chapter 3, which looks briefly at issues of paleography, the effects of age, the problems of authorship, the other writers that appear in his documents, and the importance of amanuenses and witnesses in documentary production. Chapters 4 and 5 look at the two broad text categories that form Aristophanes’ dossier: documents connected with taxation and private, legal documents. The first of these, which forms the vast majority of the dossier (in terms of numbers of texts rather than their length), enables a study of how taxes were administrated in the second half of the 720s, focusing primarily on the poll tax. The private documents form a less homogenous body, including sales, dispute settlements, and child donations. Yet, despite the range of issues and dates (covering the 730s to 750s), several families appear with regularity among this group (including Aaron son of Shenoute, the subject of my master’s dissertation), allowing individual historiesPage xii → to be followed. Chapter 6 returns the focus of this study to Aristophanes, asking questions about his role in the community and why he wrote the documents that he did—why he wrote for certain family groups and how he become so involved in taxation. I there move beyond Thebes, looking at broader trends in eighth-century Egypt and taking Aristophanes outside the confines of the mudbrick wall in which Djeme was built. Although my reeditions of Aristophanes’ texts have been removed from this book, appendix 2 includes nine previously unpublished ostraca that he wrote and one edition of a text that was initially published as only a description.3 In some instances, I discovered these ostraca while looking for other material within the collections in question (notably the British Museum ostraca). More texts were brought to my attention by others: the Cambridge material by Nikolaos Gonis, the Kelsey texts through the work of Terry Wilfong, the Columbia ostraca by Elisabeth O’Connell (as well as their presence on the online Advanced Papyrological Information System [APIS]), and the Durham ostracon by Klaas Worp, who was working on the material from the Oriental Museum. I have no doubt that more of Aristophanes’ ostraca remain to be discovered in other collections throughout the world. As a case in point, I have decided not to include in this study an ostracon in the collection of Columbia University that has penciled on it the note “hand of Aristophanes” (O.Col. inv. 513). Despite my consulting this piece in person, the discoloration to the surface and the subsequent amount of text lost means that I am far from in agreement with this note and cannot certainly attribute the ostracon to Aristophanes. I also believe that Aristophanes may be responsible for an unpublished papyrus in the Louvre that I have not seen but of which I have received a description from Lajos Berkes.4 As a result of the changed focus of this volume and in light of tight practical constraints, it has not been possible to include the number of images that I ideally would have liked to illustrate all the fine points in Aristophanes’ work that I discuss. Instead, I have had to be highly selective and to incorporate only those images that I feel provide the best evidence for specific points. However, Page xiii →my aim for the future remains to publish in full my reeditions of Aristophanes’ papyri, with a complete set of plates for each document. I have been very fortunate that I entered the world of Coptic papyrology at a time that both it and the archaeology of late antique Egypt is enjoying renewed interest and investigation. For western Thebes alone, I started my graduate studies shortly after Terry Wilfong published his study on life at Djeme (2002), Women of Jeme: Lives in a Coptic Town in Late Antique Egypt. That volume provides the perfect modern introduction to the village, allowing me to forgo much introductory material, none of which I could write better than he did—both that book and his 1989 overview of western Thebes remain two of my most-used resources for the region. Another fundamental study of Coptic nonliterary material also appeared in 2002, the first edition of Sebastian

Richter’s Rechtsemantik und forensische Rhetorik (the second edition came out in 2008). Work on monasticism in western Thebes has particularly experienced a resurgence over the past two decades. Anne Boud’hors and Chantel Huertel alone are responsible for the publication of hundreds of texts from the region, namely, Theban Tomb (TT) 29, the home of the monk Frange, and the topos of St. Mark. At Dra Abu elNaga, the German Institute in Cairo has excavated the monastery of Apa Paul, the texts from which are now available online. Other Theban tombs nearby have also revealed evidence of later Coptic occupation, including TT 148 and 233 (the mission of my old institute Macquarie University, Sydney), the texts from which are being prepared for publication by Malcolm Choat. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of new ostraca, which I briefly outline in more detail in chapter 1. Older material has also been examined. Esther Garel’s 2015 doctoral thesis concerns the testaments of the superiors of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon at Deir el-Bahri, providing important new editions, with previously unpublished fragments. Two other sites should be mentioned in the context of the study of late antique Egypt, in terms of Coptic papyrological material. Sarah Clackson and Alain Delattre have been responsible for the publication of a large amount of material from the monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit, near Hermopolis (the most up-to-date list of texts from the site is provided at the end of P.Louvre Bawit). Aphrodito remains pivotal to the study of late antiquity, both before and after the Arab conquest at the beginning of the 640s. Lorelei Vanderheyden’s doctoral thesis (2015) comprises the edition of Coptic texts from the archive of Dioscorus, whose body of work is well known (most recently through the work of Jean-Luc Page xiv →Fournet, among others) and contains possibly the earliest Coptic legal text. A little later, the early eighth-century Qurra archive, written in Greek, Coptic, and Arabic, is one of our greatest resources for the study of the economic, administrative, and linguistic reality of life in Egypt at this time. It remains underutilized, although studies by Arietta Papaconstantinou (2010) and Sebastian Richter (2010) highlight how important it is in these different areas. The coming years will also see the publication of the Coptic component of the archive of the official Papas at Edfu, not as large as that of Qurra but potentially as important. Alain Delattre and others are currently editing the texts, which are in the collection of the Institut franГ§ais d’archГ©ologie orientale in Cairo. Since I started my doctoral work, another initiative has raised the profile of the study of Coptic papyrology, the Summer School in Coptic Papyrology. To date, two publications from different summer schools have appeared, CPR XXXI and P.Stras.Copt. I had the honor of being invited to teach at the second summer school, held in Leipzig in July 2008, shortly after my PhD examination. The summer school not only facilitates the publication of unedited texts in different collections but also provides training, in Coptic papyrology, that is available in so few institutions worldwide. At the same time, the Coptic sessions at the International Congress of Papyrology (held every three years) continue to increase in size, and sessions on nonliterary studies are increasing at the International Congress of Coptic Studies (held every four years). I have benefited immensely from my participation in these meetings since my first attendance at a papyrology congress, in Ann Arbor in 2007. Occurring alongside the twenty-first century’s increase in interest in Coptic nonliterary material has been a rise in the study of early Arabic papyri and the early Islamic world. In part, this is the result of the efforts of Petra Sijpesteijn, professor of Arabic language and culture at the University of Leiden and director of the European Research Council (ERC) project “The Formation of Islam: The View from Below” (2009–2015) and the new ERC project “Embedding Conquest: Naturalising Muslim Rule in the Early Islamic Empire (600–1000)” (2017–2022). I owe a great deal of gratitude to Petra for taking the time to discuss certain issues with me about my research, as well as to other members of her research team, particularly Marie Legendre, whose interests overlap with my own. This book’s subtitle refers to Aristophanes as a Coptic scribe because he wrote almost entirely in Coptic—the amount of Greek that he wrote is negligiblePage xv → in comparison and highly formulaic. He also comes from a Christian (Coptic) community in Egypt, with Christianity continuing as the majority religion of the population in the century following the conquest. However, the use of Coptic, as opposed to Greek, creates the idea of a society markedly divided between Copts and Greeks, which is mostly inaccurate: Egyptians may have been Coptic or Greek speakers, but for the most part they were Egyptian. In my title, I use the term Coptic, rather

than Egyptian, to emphasize the primary language of all the documents in question. In discussing the population, I aim to use Egyptian at all times. That Egypt was still predominantly Christian at this point raises a problem with referring, as I do in my subtitle, to “early Islamic” Egypt. In the initial post-conquest period, the religion Islam and the language Arabic both made a limited impact on the Coptic documentation, a point raised by other scholars (and which I note in chapter 1). At that time, the country was decidedly neither of these things. In the eighth century, the processes of Islamization and Arabization accelerated, yet their presence, apart from the new poll tax that is the main focus of chapter 4, was rather minimal in the Djeme corpus—and when officials with Arab names appear in the documents, I refer to them as such, rather than as Islamic. Designating the period of Aristophanes’ corpus as Umayyadic and Abassidic would be more accurate (and only very few of his texts even postdate the start of the Abassid period, 750). Nevertheless, designating it as “early Islamic” is a convenient way to refer to the first 150 years after the conquest. In addition, I refer to the sixth to eighth centuries more broadly as “late antiquity, ” which has become a rather fuzzy categorical marker for these centuries and the transition from Byzantine to Arab rule. In terms of bibliography, I have attempted to be as inclusive as possible, integrating studies that appeared immediately prior to my submission of the completed manuscript to the University of Michigan Press. For example, I was able to include Boud’hors 2016, because including a reference to that reedition of two ostraca that I discuss in passing was a straightforward matter. However, there is at least one notable omission. Vorderstrasse’s 2015 study on houses in Djeme engages, in part, with my study of the archive of Germanos (Cromwell 2012b and 2013b) but went to press before my publication of the archive of Daniel son of Pachom (Cromwell 2014). Modifying the relevant sections of chapter 5 herein to engage with Vorderstrasse’s discussion has not been possible, and that engagement must await another opportunity in the future. I end this preface with a special thank-you, sadly too late, to Leslie MacCoull,Page xvi → who passed away only a few months before I sat down to write it. I first contacted Leslie a decade or more ago, while I was a PhD student, with questions about her many publications on the subject of Coptic nonliterary texts, the study of which she was one of the most important pioneers. She was the first person to introduce many ideas and published new material at a time when very few people were working in this area, paving the way for the resurgence in academic interest of the past couple of decades. While I only met her in person once (in 2007 in Ann Arbor), we remained in regular contact, and my shelves include several volumes of hers that she generously sent me and that tackle issues with which I engage throughout the following study. Leslie had a level of energy,5 in person and in her vast output, which I only hope to be able to emulate.

Page xvii →

Acknowledgments My gratitude goes first to Mark Collier at the University of Liverpool, who initially introduced me to the Djeme corpus, in 2003, after I told him I had decided to focus on Coptic texts for my MA in Egyptology and wanted to pursue a topic related to daily life. Mark not only brought the later history of western Thebes to my attention but helped shape my MA dissertation and develop my doctoral research. My secondary supervisor, Christopher Eyre, helped to refine and define the scope of my research. I also thank my examiners, Roland Enmarch and Tonio Sebastian Richter. In particular, Sebastian has my great thanks for the continued support and advice that he has given me in the realm of Coptic documentary studies over the years since. The initial work on converting my thesis into a monograph was undertaken during a three-year fellowship at University College, Oxford (the Lady Wallis Budge Junior Research Fellowship in Egyptology), in 2007–2010. The major reworking of my study took place while I was a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University, Sydney (Macquarie University Research Fellow), in 2011–2014. The final stages of the manuscript production have been undertaken during my current fellowship at the Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies at the University of Copenhagen (first as a Danish Research Council postdoctoral researcher and currently as a Marie Curie Fellow). My sincere thanks go to all my colleagues and friends at Oxford, Macquarie, and Copenhagen for their support and encouragement during this process. Immediately after the completion of my thesis, I wrote to Trianos Gagos to ask about publishing it in the series New Texts in Ancient Cultures at the UniversityPage xviii → of Michigan Press. His encouragement in the initial stages energized me into transforming my study and making it suitable for publication. I am immensely saddened that he is no longer with us, and I cannot repay his support. Throughout the past five (or so) years, Ellen Bauerle has been exceedingly patient with me, as my editor at the press. Over this period, my thesis has morphed into quite a different thing, and it has not always been the easiest manuscript to deal with. Ellen has been immensely supportive and has also curbed my desire to throw everything into the mix, and the resulting manuscript is much stronger for this. More recently, Susan Cronin has been responsible for the final stages of the manuscript’s production. Aristophanes’ material is located in several collections across the world. For their assistance with my inquiries and for access to the material, I thank the following institutions (and people): the Г„gyptisches Museum, Berlin (Verena Lepper); the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (initially Helen Whitehouse, then Liam McNamara); the British Library, Department of Asian and African Studies; the British Museum, Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan (especially Elisabeth O’Connell); Columbia University, Rare Books and Manuscript Library (Jane Siegel and David Ratzan); the Oriental Museum, Durham University (Rachel Barclay); the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge (Sally-Ann Ashton, then curator); the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology (Sebastian Encina and Michelle Fontenot); the Louvre Museum (Florence Calament); Г–sterreichische Nationalbibliothek (initially Cornelia RГ¶mer, later Bernhard Palme); the Petrie Museum, University College London (Alice Stevenson); and the Thermenmuseum, Heerlen (Karen Jeneson). A great resource for the study of so much Coptic material is Walter Crum’s archive, and his notes and notebooks contain some unpublished information regarding texts discussed in this volume. For all their assistance at the Griffith Institute at Oxford over many years, I thank the now-retired Jaromir Malek and Alison Hobby, as well as the current staff: Elizabeth Fleming, Cat Warsi, and Francisco Bosch-Puche. Another archive held by the institute, that of the late Sarah Clackson, also includes material that has been fundamental to the completion of this study, including her notes on material in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, and the papyrus collection at the University of Michigan. One of my few regrets is that I never had the opportunity to meet Sarah, who passed away while I was just entering the world of Coptic papyrology. In addition to the generous research funding that has accompanied my differentPage xix → postdoctoral fellowships, my research could not have been undertaken without additionalgrants. My doctoral work was

undertaken with the support of a PhD grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (2004–2007). Further research, including participation in different international conferences, was undertaken as a result of grants received from the Oriental Institute and Griffith Institute at Oxford. I owe great thanks to the following colleagues, who have either discussed aspects of the work contained herein, shared their work (published and unpublished) and their thoughts on numerous points, or brought to my attention texts or studies that I would otherwise have missed: Roger Bagnall, Lajos Berkes, Anne Boud’hors, Richard Burchfield, Malcolm Choat, Alain Delattre, Chrysi Kotsifou, Marie Legendre, Leslie MacCoull, Arietta Papaconstantinou, Gesa Schenke, Petra Sijpesteijn, Terry Wilfong, and Klaas Worp. Special thanks go to Nikolaos Gonis, for sharing with me his unpublished work on tax receipts, including those by Aristophanes, and for allowing me to use the data contained within it. I have been fortunate to be working at a time when increasing study is being done, with renewed vigor, on Coptic and late antique papyrology and history, and I have benefited immensely from this environment and the research being undertaken, notably by Esther Garel, Isabelle Marthot, and Lorelai Vanderheyden. Since the time of my thesis submission, several friends have read through different sections of this study (even in almost primeval stages) and have pushed me to produce better work. It is impossible to name everybody who has been involved in some manner or another. I especially thank Myrto Malouta, Matthew Gibbs, and Luigi Prada. In particular, without Luigi’s keen eye for attention to detail and consistency and his constant striving for excellence, as well as his never-ending support, I dread to think how many more errors would have crept into my work (of course, any errors that remain are entirely my own). Finally, I thank my family—my parents, Michelle, Tom, and Bethany—without whom I certainly would not be here. Across the continent and across hemispheres, they have always been the constant in my life. I dedicate this book to them.

Page xx →Page xxi →

Aids for the Reader Abbreviations Coptic and Greek papyri and ostraca, as well as papyrological instrumenta, are referenced by the standard abbreviations employed in the discipline of papyrology, from the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets. At the time of this publication, a current list can be found online at http://papyri.info/docs/checklist.

Egyptian Calendar The Egyptian calendar comprised twelve months of thirty days, plus five (in a leap year, six) intercalary (“epagomenal”) days. Coptic and Greek names for these months are not always the same. Herein, I use the following spellings for the months (the dates given are for a nonleap year): Pachon 1 = 26 AprilHathor 1 = 28 October Paone 1 = 26 MayChoiak 1 = 27 November Epiph 1 = 25 JuneTobe 1 = 27 December Mesore 1 = 25 JulyMechir 1 = 26 January Epagomenal days: 24–28 AugustPhamenoth 1 = 25 February Thoth 1 = 29 AugustPharmoute 1 = 27 March Paope 1 = 28 September Page xxii →Many of the dates of the documents in this study include a chronological unit called the indiction. Each indiction was one year long and part of a fifteen-year cycle, with fifteen units, such that a fifteenth year is followed by the first. Throughout this volume, each unit is referred to as an indiction year. The Egyptian year did not start in January, so each indiction year overlaps two Julien years; for brevity, only the first year of a cycle is noted below (e.g., 722 rather than 722–723). Also, as Aristophanes’ years span the 720s to the late 750s, I have only included years from that period. 1732 / 747 / 7626722 / 737 / 75211727 / 742 / 757 2733 / 748 / 7637723 / 738 / 75312728 / 743 / 758 3734 / 749 / 7648724 / 739 / 75413729 / 744 / 759 4735 / 750 / 7659725 / 740 / 75514730 / 745 / 760 5736 / 751 / 76610726 / 741 / 75615731 / 746 / 761 Unless otherwise stated, all dates are CE (Common Era).

Glossary amir: Arabic title for a senior official, often the pagarch. Apa: Common men’s monastic title.

ape: Official title, precursor of the strategos. carat: Bronze coin, a division of the principal gold coin, with twenty-four carats to one holokottinos. dapane: A money tax, for the expenses of Arab officials. demosion: Money taxes in general (as used by Aristophanes). diagraphon: The poll tax, paid by non-Muslim adult males. dioiketes: Administrative official, directly under the pagarch. embole: A tax paid in kind. holokottinos (plural holokottinoi): Coptic term for the largest denomination of gold coin (Latin solidus), roughly equivalent to the Arab dinar. In Greek documents and passages within Coptic texts, it is referred to as the nomisma. I use the terms as they are found within the documents and do not use solidus at any point. lashane: Town official, of which there were often two at the same time. meizon: Equivalent of lashane. Page xxiii →meizoteros: Equivalent of dioiketes (although Aristophanes is not consistent in its use). nome: Geographical unit (for administrative purposes), each of which has a capital town. nomisma: See holokottinos. pagarch: Major district administrator. protokollon: Label sheet at the beginning of a papyrus roll, written in stylized Greek or Arabic script. she: Small-denomination bronze coin, with between 240 and 288 she to one holokottinos (the amount seemingly varied over time). strategos: Administrative official, connected to taxation; multiple strategoi served at the same time. tremis: Gold coin, equal to one-third of the holokottinos.

Names Renderings of all Arab(ic) names follow the standard in Legendre 2014, and “b.” (ibn) is used rather than “son of.” In the transcription of all other names, I have strived for consistency, rather than slavishly following individual spellings by different individuals of the same name, e.g., always Johannes, not Johanes, Joannes, Johanne. When Coptic and Greek versions of the same name occur, I use the version of the language of origin (e.g., for Coptic names, always Shenoute, not Shenouthios; Papnoute, not Papnouthios). The one major exception is the name Pisenthios, as the Greek rendering is more common in the scholarly literature, especially in connection with the famous bishop Pisenthios of Coptos. I have also tried to use transcription patterns that look as natural as possible in English, without resorting to modern English versions of names (e.g., Johannes, not John; Petros, not Peter; Stephanos, not Stephen/Steven). Again, the exception occurs with the monastery of Apa Paul (not Paulos) and topos of St. Mark (not Marcus), as used in contemporary scholarship.

Quotations of Coptic and Greek I quote the original texts with abbreviated words expanded and with accentuation of Greek passages. While this method removes the reader slightly from the Page xxiv →texts as the original scribe(s) wrote them, it provides the

greatest utility to the reader, who may not be familiar with abbreviated forms. Coptic and Greek is marked according to the Leiden system, which indicates the condition of the papyrological text, but only in a limited capacity. I have not used underdots to show that letters are damaged, but I have employed the following conventions: [abc]Letters missing from the original text due to lacuna, restored by the editor. a(bc)Abbreviation in the text, expanded by the editor. Characters erroneously omitted by the ancient scribe, restored or corrected by the editor. {ab}Letters in the text considered erroneous and superfluous by the editor. вџ¦abвџ§Deleted letters. \ab/Letters added above the line of writing. vac.Space left empty on the papyrus. vestig.Unreadable traces. .В .В .В . Traces of letters on the surface, insufficient for restoration by the editor (not to be confused with ellipticalВ .В .В .В , which indicates that text has been skipped over). In my translations, round brackets indicate words that I have inserted that are not in the original.

Page 1 →

Chapter 1 A Scribe in His Time and Place Egypt’s arid climate has resulted in the preservation of organic material that does not endure in other conditions. Papyri, parchment, paper, and other writing supports survive from all periods of the country’s history, from the twenty-sixth century BCE to today, in the different languages that its people and its rulers used throughout the land. These materials record aspects of life that would otherwise remain unknown, providing evidence of day-to-day activities at different levels within society. This study focuses on the activities recorded by a single scribe living in southern Egypt in the eighth century, a time when the country was undergoing monumental changes that affected every facet of life. While many thousands of texts survive, they do not tell us everything about any given time and place. Not every part of life was written down, and what we see is only what the administration needed to be documented and what men and women who could afford the recording of their private affairs wanted to be preserved for the course of their lifetime, if not longer. Men and women, that is, who could afford to have their private affairs recorded. Varying conditions, modern settlements, and the history of early discoveries and later archaeological excavations result in certain sites benefiting from a wealth of material not enjoyed by other locations. Finally, when and where manuscripts have come down to us, they are rarely perfectly preserved. The number of complete manuscripts, on any medium, is far outnumbered by the number that survive as small fragments. These pieces of papyri and ostraca, in combination with the pieces of the archaeological record, are an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. They can be fitted together to form a broken image of what once was. In the eighth century, few Page 2 →places build a more complete and complex picture than the village Djeme in western Thebes. Over onethird of all published Coptic manuscripts originate from Thebes, and over half of these are from the village itself.6 Djeme provides a better opportunity to reconstruct the lives of Egyptian villagers in this period than anywhere else. The major papyrological discoveries took place during the second half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, and most of the material was published by the middle of the latter century. Small numbers of texts in collections from around the world continue to be rediscovered, edited, and added to the existing corpus. Excavations also continue throughout the area, discovering new material, although rarely concerning Djeme itself. Djeme’s dossier comprises texts of a nonliterary nature, “everyday writing” that reveals major events that occurred in the lives of several of its inhabitants.7 Often, this involves financial and property concerns, as well as disputes over both. The best-known families represented in the dossier have been the subject of most previous studies of life in Djeme.8 Indeed, it is impossible to avoid these famous figures, and they will appear in the chapters that follow. However, rather than focus on these men and women, this study places into center stage a scribe from the village, Aristophanes son of Johannes, who wrote the largest number of surviving texts, both on papyrus and ostraca, for a wide range of people and purposes. Shifting to a scribe provides a different perspective on daily life and enables a number of issues to be addressed. Within Djeme, we may find connections between individuals that are not otherwise found when concentrating solely on the family or group in question. Certain types of document that Aristophanes wrote connect Djeme with events happening outside the village, placing life in Djeme in its broader context and revealing how it fit within a changing political, social, and economic world. In turn, there are practical considerations, includingPage 3 → how scribes were taught, literacy levels within the village, the physicality of the writing process, and for whom scribes wrote and why. Before introducing Aristophanes’ dossier and tackling these issues, it is necessary to establish several elements of their context: Djeme in place and time, the history and role of Coptic in this period, and the evidence for scribes at Thebes.

1.1. Djeme and Western Thebes

During the seventh and eighth centuries, the Theban region was home to a bustling and thriving Coptic9 community centered on the town Djeme (П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰)10 and its surrounding settlements, not all of which survive in the archaeological record.11 The famous pharaonic landscape—the mortuary temples and burial places of the kings of the New Kingdom—was reshaped for the needs of the later population, into monasteries, hermitages, and villages. Much has already been written about the archaeology of the area, so only a brief overview is provided here, to facilitate making sense of the material that Aristophanes wrote. Built within and around the ancient pharaonic temple Medinet Habu, the mortuary temple of Rameses III (ca. 1186–1155 BCE), Djeme was the largest settlement site in the area, with a population between fifteen hundred and two thousand.12 When the University of Chicago excavated the site in the 1920s, all that survived there were the broken remains of fewer than 130 individual houses, located predominantly within the confines of the temple complex’s ancientPage 4 → boundary wall, to the north and west of the temple itself.13 Today, vestiges of these buildings can still be seen in the mudbrick wall.14 The ancient temple remained intact and was an integral architectural feature of the village. Houses were built against and inside it, with the limestone structure modified to suit the needs of the villagers.15 Modern reconstruction work has been thorough enough to remove many indications of these late changes to the temple from the eyes of the casual observer, including those changes that occurred in the second courtyard of the temple. This space was adapted to become the village’s central church, the Holy Church of Djeme (вІ§вІ‰вІ•вІ•вІ—вІЏвІҐвІ“вІЃ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІ©вІЃвІЃвІѓ вІ›П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰), whose priests appear as witnesses in several of Aristophanes’ texts. Originally, the courtyard’s east and west sides were lined with statues in the form of the ancient god Osiris. These pagan forms were hacked away to provide bare columns more appropriate for the Christian church, although more complete—or less thoroughly destroyed—forms survive in the darker corners. On the north face, the central column and the architrave above it were removed to make space for the church’s altar. Forty-two columns filled the courtyard, supporting a ceiling, and remained there until their removal in the nineteenth century, when they were relegated to the area outside the temple’s southern wall, where they remain today. Photographs and watercolors show the condition of the courtyard before clearing took place,16 and Monneret de Villard produced a reconstruction of how the church may have looked during its lifetime.17 Houses that survived at the time of the Chicago expedition were all of a small size, typically comprising two rooms on the ground floor, with stairs leading to upper and lower floors.18 With the lack of a complete architectural record,Page 5 → it cannot be determined how typical these are of the entire village. Many of Aristophanes’ texts concern private houses in the village, as the objects of sales, inheritance bequests, and disputes. Chapter 5.1 provides a more detailed overview of the structure of these buildings, combining archaeological data with the textual record. Outside the village walls, the Theban sites that appear in Aristophanes’ dossier are the monasteries of Apa Phoibammon at Deir el-Bahri and Apa Paul at Deir el-Bachit (Dra Abu el-Naga), both north of Djeme. The Valleys of the Kings and Queens, the Ramesseum, Deir el-Medina, and numerous private tombs all show signs of later occupation,19 but Aristophanes did not record events concerning them. He wrote to no monastic individuals, including anybody associated with the monastery of Epiphanius, which figures prominently in other, earlier texts from Djeme.20 While a number of other religious structures and organizations appear in Aristophanes’ dossier, it is not possible to identify them with any structure either in Medinet Habu’s immediate vicinity or elsewhere in Thebes. The monastery of Apa Phoibammon was founded by Apa Abraham following his consecration to the bishopric of Ermont (see below), at the end of the sixth century.21 It was built on the mortuary temple of the female pharaoh Hatschepsut, approximately two kilometers from Djeme. Remains of the monastery existed until the first season of Edouard Naville’s expedition to the temple in 1893, on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund (now the Egypt Exploration Society). Site photographs taken by Howard Carter provide the best evidence for its layout, the most prominent feature of which was a large keep situated in the southeast corner of the temple’s upper terrace.22

Page 6 →The archaeological evidence is otherwise too scant to produce a plan of the monastery. A large number of ostraca discovered at the site concern its activity and function. These mostly date to the first half of the seventh century and involve ecclesiastical activity and administration during Abraham’s time.23 The papyri connected with the monastery—which are far fewer in number than the ostraca—fall into two groups: the testaments of its superiors, which date to the first half of the seventh century, and records of donations to the monastery, mainly from the second half of the eighth century, after which time the monastery was abandoned.24 Until recently, the monastery of Apa Paul had not been identified archaeologically. Its existence was restricted to the textual record, where it is described as being in the “Cup.”25 This designation was interpreted as referring to a specific recess in the Theban mountains, but the monastery has since been confirmed as that located at Deir el-Bachit on Dra Abu el-Naga.26 The archaeological record for this monastery is more complete than that of Apa Phoibammon’s, even though barely any superstructures survive. The record includes cells, stables, a church, a cemetery, storerooms, and a refectory that could sit approximately seventy monks.27 Only a few papyri mention the monastery (P.CLT 1–5 and P.KRU 106), but work on the ostraca discovered during the recent excavations is still in its initial stages, and more information concerning its history and life at the site will emerge in the coming years.28 Beyond the Theban west bank, Djeme was part of the pagarchy, or nome, of Ermont (вІ‰вІЈвІ™вІџвІ›вІ§, Greek бј™ПЃОјПЊОЅОёО№П‚, Hermonthis). Twenty kilometers south of Djeme, Ermont occurs frequently in the texts as part of the village’s full designation “the castrum29 Djeme of the nome of the city Ermont,” but none of the parties in Aristophanes’ texts are from the city, and no action takes place there. Page 7 →A few other toponyms appear in this dossier, some of which are ephemeral and difficult to locate except that they belong to the same Hermonthite nome, for example, Romoou (variously Ramau, Romou), which is mentioned in P.KRU 87.30 Two places far north of the village are mentioned. Antinoopolis (Greek бј€ОЅП„О№ОЅОїПЊПЂОїО»О№П‚, CopticвІЃвІ›вІ§вІ“вІ›вІџвІџвІ©), 375 kilometers north of Djeme, is named as the seat of the dux, from whom arbitration is sought in a property dispute.31 The city was one of the most important in Roman and early Islamic Egypt, but apart from this one mention, it does not otherwise occur in documents from Thebes.32 The Fayum region (Coptic, вІЎвІ§вІџПЈ вІ™вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІџвІџвІ™, Greek ОЅОїОјПЊП‚ бј€ПЃПѓО№ОЅОїОЇП„ОїП‚), 560 kilometers north of Djeme, is the stated destination of three monks from the monastery of Apa Paul. Not stated are the Fayum location to which the three were traveling or their relationship with the region.

1.2. Early Islamic Egypt The textual record from Thebes spans the period from the late sixth to late eighth centuries. The earliest absolutely dated text is the record of a solar eclipse that took place on 10 March 601, SB Kopt. II 1238.33 The eclipse occurred when Petros son of Paulos was lashane of Djeme, although whether Medinet Habu had enjoyed continuous occupation from the pharaonic period until the late sixth century is difficult to ascertain. The early seventh century was witness to the production of a large volume of texts from the region’s monasteries, especially under Abraham, bishop of Ermont and head of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon at Deir el-Bahri, between 590/600 and 610/620. The majority of texts from Djeme itself, however, date to the eighth century, with Aristophanes’ dossier dating to its second quarter.34 All the activity that Aristophanes recorded therefore took place when Egypt had been under Arab rule for over seventy years, following the conquest of 641 Page 8 →CE by КїAmr b. al-КїДЂб№Ј, which brought to an end the period of Byzantine rule.35 Egypt was now run by a governor in Fustat, the new capital, who represented the Umayyad Caliph in Damascus in the first half of the eighth century. Early studies on the new rulers painted them and their administration less than favorably, but advances in Arabic papyrology and new research on this early period have placed the change of regime in a more positive light.36 Initially, the new regime adopted the existing administrative structures, without significant change, allowing the ensuing Islamization and Arabization of the country in the late seventh and early eighth centuries to progress in a sure and steady manner. The terms Islamization and Arabization indicate two different aspects of the changes introduced to Egypt. Islamization is marked by, among other actions, the implantation of Muslims in administrative positions or conversion of existing Christian officials and the introduction of the new religious poll tax to be paid by all non-Muslims. Arabization is

reflected in the increased use of Arabic as both the administrative and day-to-day language of Egypt. Both of these processes, which continued beyond the eighth century, are hardly felt within the Theban material, but they do appear—in names, titles, and the Arabic protokollon preserved at the beginning of some documents.37 The exception to this is the poll tax, which predominates the textual record of the early eighth century. Receipts for it constitute the largest category of text type in Aristophanes’ dossier. While other impositions were recorded from Djeme, Aristophanes rarely wrote receipts for anything except this tax. Many studies have considered its introduction (soon after the conquest) and its organization.38Page 9 → How the tax was administrated in the village is discussed in detail in chapter 4, while chapter 6.2 examines how it fits into the wider administrative machine in Egypt. To all intents and purposes, Thebes had a wholly Egyptian, Christian population at this time, and Christian overtones are present throughout the written record, in references to the Holy Trinity, God Almighty, and his various saints and their shrines. Nevertheless, such glimpses of Muslims and Arabic in the texts are a constant reminder of their increasingly important role in Egypt, which sets the background against which life in Thebes took place. The year 750 brought political upheavals within the Islamic Empire, with the Abassid caliphate replacing the Umayyads. Not long after this event, the volume of the textual material from Djeme decreased, and most datable documents after the 760s are records of donations of children to the monastery of Apa Phoibammon. By the end of the eighth century or, at the latest, the beginning of the ninth, all evidence of life in Thebes, from town and monasteries alike, stops. Different theories explaining this cessation include plague, economic collapse, and fighting in the south, but nothing exists to support one theory over the other. It may be a coincidence that the final absolutely dated text from Thebes, P.KRU 91 (March 781), falls just before the start of civil unrest in Upper Egypt following the revolt of the Umayyad pretender Diḥya b. Muṣ’ab.39 Whatever the reason, the written evidence ends as abruptly as it begins, and nothing can be said of life in western Thebes after the eighth century.

1.3. The Use of Coptic in Early Islamic Egypt The lives of Thebes’ inhabitants are recorded in a large corpus of written material from across the region and all forms of settlements. The majority were discovered as a result of various activities outside the confines of official excavation, and their original findspots are often—but not always—lost.40 More Page 10 →recently, material has been found during scientific missions.41 A wide range of text types is represented, varying in length and complexity. These include literary texts,42 homiletic and liturgical texts, letters, and legal documents, written on ostraca, papyrus, and, less commonly, leather and parchment. Nonliterary texts predominate by far.43 The one unifying aspect of these disparate texts is the dominant language in which they were written, Coptic. Aristophanes wrote administrative texts and private legal documents in Coptic interspersed with set phrases in Greek,44 as well as a few more mundane pieces of everyday writing, such as lists and receipts for goods. The majority of Coptic legal documents postdate the Arab conquest, but the use of Coptic for such purposes was not an invention of the conquest, and its origins can be found in the sixth century. While the motivations and mechanisms for the development of Coptic as a legal language are the subject of much discussion (see especially the work of Jean-Luc Fournet and Leslie MacCoull),45 the processes involved are still not fully understood. What follows here, therefore, attempts not to contribute to this issue but to provide the background to the types of text that Aristophanes produced.46 Before the sixth century, there is little evidence for the use of Coptic—for any nonliterary purposes—in towns and cities in the Nile valley and the Fayum, Page 11 →based on the provenance of datable texts.47 However, some of the letters discovered at Kellis, in the Dakhla Oasis, were written by residents of the valley, and the preliminary findings of the Coptic material from Oxyrhynchus provide early dates,48 confirming that Coptic was also used there for such purposes. In the sixth century, the number of texts increases, starting with a three-line notation on the verso of a Greek lease contract from Hermopolis dated 19 September 513, BGU XVII 22683 (= SB XIV 11373).49 The earliest example of a judicial Coptic document seems to be P.Berol. inv. 11349, a settlement

concerning land, which can be dated to either 534/535 or 549/550 based on the mention in it of year 13 and its connection with a famous bilingual notary from sixth-century Aphrodito, Dioscorus son of Apollo.50 Dioscorus also wrote P.Lond. V 1709 (566/567) and the duplicate text P.Cair.Masp. II 67176r, with its associated fragments, as well as P.Cair.Masp. III 67353r (28 October 569), all of which are also settlement documents.51 Without us looking to explain why Dioscorus wrote documents in Coptic,52 two interrelated points are important here. First, the bilingual environment of Aphrodito, together with the changing linguistic landscape of Egypt, provided the ideal mixing pot in which Coptic texts could appear.53 Second, the earliest Coptic documents are attributed to a professional notary with a strong command of both Greek and Coptic (Dioscorus), who was able to adapt the necessaryPage 12 → formulary from one language to the other. Later preconquest documents are found elsewhere in southern Egypt, from Hermopolis to Aswan (Syene), predominantly in other bilingual archives.54 The social and linguistic environment there, fueled by the personal impetus of capable bilingual scribes, was conducive to the development of Coptic for such purposes. At Thebes, nonliterary texts first appear from the turn of the seventh century. As already mentioned, the earliest absolutely dated document from Djeme is SB Kopt. II 1238, which reports the solar eclipse of March 601. But this is not a legal document. Contemporary to this text is the archive connected with Apa Abraham, the founder of the monastery at Deir el-Bahri and bishop of Ermont. In addition to the texts that document the organization of the monastery under his tenure, Abraham’s testament survives.55 It was written ca. 610 in Greek, despite Abraham’s inability to understand that language, as expressed in the document itself: “.В .В .В and having been asked about everything as interpreted for me in the Egyptian language by the notary [ПѓП…ОјОІОїО»О±О№ОїОіПЃО¬П†ОїП‚]” (P.Lond. I 77.68–69). This is the only Greek testament from this period at Thebes, and Abraham’s successors Apa Victor (P.KRU 77), Apa Petros, and Apa Jacob (P.KRU 65) had their documents drawn up in Coptic.56 P.KRU 77 preserves its date: it was written on Choiak 8, indiction year 8, in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Heraclius and the twenty-second year of that of his son, Heraclius Junior, which equates to 4 December 634.57 Before the conquest, legal documents were written at Thebes in Coptic, the language of the local population, as Victor’s testament indicates. An even earlier date (576–578) is proposed for P.KRU 105, recording the donation of village land to a monastic foundation, but this proposal is based on the reading of certain passages. No date for that text is actually preserved, yet a preconquest date is possible.58 Page 13 →After the conquest, the number of legal documents in Coptic explodes. The first Theban document from this period that can be dated with certainty is P.CLT 1, between the monk Moses son of Pluj and the monastery of Apa Paul, written on Thoth 16, indiction year 12. The Greek protocol attached to the top of the papyrus when the roll was manufactured bears the name of the governor of Egypt, КїAbd al-КїAzД«z b. MarwДЃn, who was in that post from 11 February 685 to 11 May 705. While the mention of the governor is not in the main body of the text and is not connected with any events recorded therein, the prosopographic evidence supports a date of 698, which is generally accepted.59 This document was written by a well-known scribe from Djeme, Psate son of Pisrael, and is signed by another, Johannes son of Lazarus (both of whom are discussed further below). By the time that Aristophanes started writing documents, from the mid-720s, there was a centurylong tradition of Coptic legal writing in western Thebes. The production of private legal documents filled almost three decades of Aristophanes’ life, as chapters 2, 5, and 6 discuss. Private legal texts were not his only preoccupation, and he wrote a large number of documents connected to the fiscal administration of Djeme. The history of this category of text, written in Coptic and specifically involving the central administration of the country, is a separate one from private texts and has received little specific treatment.60 These measures primarily concern the new non-Muslim poll tax as well as other taxes, and the documentation includes tax demands and tax receipts, which numerically dominate Aristophanes’ dossier. The earliest such documents in Coptic from Egypt are tax demands. The body of surviving demands is small, and the majority originate from Hermopolis or the Hermopolite nome, an important financial center.61 The earliest tax Page 14 →demands were issued from the office of Flavius Atias and date to the 690s.62 All such texts, including

those by Aristophanes, are written in a mix of Coptic and Greek. In addition to these tax demands, the beginning of the eighth century witnessed an increasing amount of written material concerning taxation and conscription, involving the inhabitants of towns throughout Egypt and mentioning Arab officials. The largest body of these to survive comes from Aphrodito and dates to the governorates of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Malik (705–709) and Qurra b. Šharīk (709–715), the latter of whom is better attested in this corpus.63 The motivation for the writing of such documents in Coptic after the conquest, together with Aristophanes’ role in the process, is covered in chapter 4.1 and chapter 6.2. It is important to stress here that Aristophanes was using Coptic for purposes that were relatively recent developments in Egypt. His legal texts owed their existence to a long history of cultural and linguistic contact in the country, while his administrative texts were a newer phenomenon, intrinsic to the wider political processes taking place at that time.

1.4. Scribes and Writers Thebes provides an excellent opportunity to study the activities of specific scribes and writers, many of whom are known by name. Aristophanes was certainly a Theban scribe. In a small number of texts, he identified himself as “from Djeme”—for example, in P.KRU 11.4–5 as [вІЃвІЈвІ“]вІҐвІ§вІџвІ«вІЃвІ›вІЏ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ“вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ вІЎвІЈвІ™вІЎвІ•вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЈвІџ[вІ›] П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ “[Ari]stophanes son of the late Johannes from the castrum Djeme” (similarly in P.CLT 6.55–56).64 Once, he included this information in his signature, stating that he was бјЂПЂбЅё ОєО¬ПѓП„ПЃОїП… ОњОµОјОЅП‰ОЅОЇОїП… “from the castrum Memnonion” (P.KRU 27.68). He owned property in the village, and his family was from Djeme as well. There is no question that he was a local man.65 Page 15 →David son of Psate, Psate son of Pisrael, Johannes son of Lazarus, and several other men also wrote multiple legal documents. Even though many scribes are known by name—and though reexamination of known texts results in the identification of more scribes66—few studies are dedicated to them.67 Tonio Sebastian Richter studied the texts of David son of Psate, one of Aristophanes’ contemporaries, but his study focuses primarily on the language of David’s texts and the attribution of unsigned documents to him, rather than on David himself.68 The lives and writing activities of the residents of TT 29—the monks Moses and Frange—are well documented because of the ostraca stored in this cell.69 Indeed, the most comprehensive analysis of the texts by a single scribe is that by Anne Boud’hors and Chantel Heurtel on the work of Frange (from the early eighth century), whose dossier includes several hundred texts (O.Frange).70 Also among this tomb’s corpus are letters written to Frange by women, notably Tsie and Susanne.71 Elsewhere on the Theban mountain range, Pisenthios, bishop of Coptos, wrote and received many letters dated to the second quarter of the seventh century. While these texts were published in the early twentieth century, study of them as a whole is currently a work in progress.72 Striking about all these writers is that none of them refer to themselves by a title that marks them as a professional scribe. Indeed, it is rare that a Theban scribe identifies himself by a title at all. Most important, just as the meaning of other titles were modified following the conquest, the designations that do occur cannot be understood in light of their application in earlier Greek texts.73 Page 16 →This serves to obscure the precise meaning of the terms that do appear, although it may well be the case that precise distinctions in function were not intended by the scribes that used them. Only the following terms occur in Thebes: grammateus, logographos, nomikos, notarios, and sach and sacho.74

вІ…вІЈвІЃвІ™вІ™вІЃвІ§вІ‰вІ©вІҐ (ОіПЃО±ОјОјО±П„ОµПЌП‚) There are four attestations of the title grammateus in Theban documents, used in reference to three different scribes writing different document types. P.KRU 65, a testament written by Theodore, and P.KRU 105, a donation record written by Damianos, have already been mentioned. P.Mon.Epiph. 163 and O.Lips.Copt. 43 are both by Athanasios. The first of these is a letter written from Djeme officials to the monastic elder Apa Epiphanius; the second is an acknowledgment of a loan. All four texts may date to the seventh century, although this is not certain:

P.KRU 105 may be earlier, and O.Lips.Copt. 43 may date to the beginning of the eighth century. Theodoros and Athanasios refer to themselves as grammateus of Djeme. It is unclear whether they intended this designation to be the equivalent of “village scribe,” and it is not the only scribal title to be followed by “of the village.” In terms of language, Athanasios wrote his notation in Coptic, but the other two scribes wrote in Greek. These two notations are also notable for their length and the use of shared phrases that are otherwise not paralleled at Thebes.75 P.KRU 65.98: ОґО№Кј бјђОјОїбї¦ ООµПЊОґП‰ПЃОїП‚ ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї· ОіПЃО±ОјОј(О±)П„(ОµбЅєП‚) ОєО¬ПѓП„ПЃОїП… ОњОµОјОЅОїОЅОЇП‰ОЅ “By me, Theodore, by God’s will, grammateus of the castrum Memnonion.”76 This is Theodore’s only attestation. Page 17 →P.KRU 105.45: ОґО№бѕЅ бјђОјОїбї¦ О”О±ОјО№О±ОЅбЅёП‚ ОіПЃО±ОјОј(О±П„ОµбЅєП‚) “By me, Damianos,77 grammateus.”78 Damianos writes on behalf of the illiterate village headman (here protokometes, not lashane).79 P.Mon.Epiph. 163.15–16, 18–19: вІЃвІ›вІџвІ• вІЃвІ‘вІЃвІ›вІЃвІҐвІ“вІџвІҐ вІЎвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ™(вІ™)вІЃ(вІ§вІ‰вІ©вІҐ) вІ›М…П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ вІЃвІ“М€вІҐМ…вІ™М…вІ›М…вІ§М…вІҐМ…вІЃвІ“М€вІҐП©вІЃвІ“М€П©вІЃвІЈвІџвІџвІ© вІЎвІЈвІџвІҐ вІЎвІ‰вІ‘вІџвІҐ вІ›М…вІЎвІ•вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЈвІџвІ› “I, Athanasios the grammateus of Djeme, drew it up and have written for them according to the custom of the castrum.” Athanasios wrote to Apa Epiphanius on behalf of the lashane of Djeme, one Shenoute, asking for Epiphanius’ intercession in an issue concerning prisoners held in Taut (el-Tod), southeast of Ermont. Shenoute again wrote to Apa Epiphanius in P.Mon.Epiph. 216, which the editor (Crum) also attributed to Athanasios. His signature does not survive, and the script is not identical, although this may be the result of P.Mon.Epiph. 163 being written on papyrus and in an especially careful hand, while P.Mon.Epiph. 216 is on a ribbed potsherd. That each text contains the abbreviation вІ—вІЃПЈ/ (вІ—вІЃПЈвІЃвІ›вІ‰: lashane) with a віЅ-shaped abbreviation stroke (163.13, 216.20)80 supports attributing both of them to Athanasius.81 O.Lips.Copt. 43:13–15: вІЃвІ›вІџвІ• вІЃвІ‘вІЃвІ›вІЃвІҐвІ“вІџвІҐ вІЎвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ™вІ™вІЃ(вІ§вІ‰вІ©вІҐ) вІ›М…П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ вІЃвІ“М€вІҐвІ™вІ›вІ§вІҐ вІЃвІ“М€вІҐП©вІЃвІ“П©вІЃвІЈвІџПҐ “I, Athanasios the grammateus of Djeme, drew it up Page 18 →and have written for him.” Athanasios writes the loan agreement between Psan son of Paham and NN son of Zacharias.

вІ—вІџвІ…вІџвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІҐ (О»ОїОіОїОіПЃО¬П†ОїП‚) The title logographos occurs only once in Thebes, used by Petros son of Antonios, the scribe of P.KRU 112, recording the donation of thirty-one sheep and fourteen goats to the monastery of Apa Phoibammon: ОґО№бѕЅ бјђОјОїбї¦ О О-П„ПЃОїП… П…(бј±)бЅё(П‚) бј€ОЅП„П‰ОЅОЇОїП… О»П‰ОіОїОіПЃО¬П†Ої(ОЅП…ОЅ) бјЂПЂбЅё ОњОµОјОЅП‰ОЅОЇП‰(ОЅ) бјђОіПЃО¬П†(О·) “Written by me, Petros son of Antonios, logographos from Memnonion” (line 18).82 However, if this title here indicates an accountant, which was one of its uses in earlier periods, then this title does not necessarily reflect Petros’ function as a scribe.83 It is possible to identify this Petros in several other texts:84 P.KRU 20.125–126, in which he acted as witness;85 P.KRU 70.65–66 and 90.36, in which he acted as amanuensis; and P.KRU 79, which may have been written by him. He also acted as witness in P.KRU 83.35, where he used another title, бЅ‘ПЂОїОґО-ОєП„О·П‚ “tax collector”: О О-П„ПЃ(ОїП‚) П…(бј±)бЅё(П‚) бј€ОЅП„П‰ОЅОЇОїП… бЅ‘ПЂОїОґО-ОєОґ(О·П‚) бјЂПЂбЅё ОњОµОјОЅОї(ОЅОЇП‰ОЅ) ОјО±ПЃП„(П…ПЃбї¶).86 Petros identified himself using titles connected to administrative accounting and recording. It is possible that his training in the scribal profession was originally connected with administrative duties connected to taxes (in which respect he shares several points in common with Aristophanes), but these titles do not reflect his role as a scribe.

вІ›вІџвІ™вІ“вІ•вІџвІҐ (ОЅОїОјО№ОєПЊП‚) The title nomikos is not used in reference to named individuals at Thebes and never appears in scribal notations there, but it occurs in several texts, such as Page 19 →P.KRU 36.27: вІЃвІ›вІҐвІ™вІ› вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІҐвІ“вІҐ вІ›вІЃвІ›вІ‰вІ›вІ‰вІЈвІЏвІ© П©вІ“ вІЎвІ›вІџвІ™вІ“вІ•вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ•вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЈвІџвІ› “We drew up (this) settlement together through the nomikos of the castrum.” The scribe in question here is Psate son of Pisrael, and it is unclear whether he was referring to himself as such or wrote this as part of a set formula. In P.KRU 89.48, the scribe is the monk Zacharias of the monastery of Abba Pisenthios, and it is again unclear if he was referring to himself or another individual when he wrote вІЃвІ©вІџПЈПҐ вІ‰вІЈвІџвІ“ П©вІ“вІ§вІ™ вІЎвІ›вІџвІ™вІ“вІ•вІџвІ© “It was read out to me by the nomikos.”

вІ›вІџвІ§вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ (ОЅОїП„О¬ПЃО№ОїП‚) There is only one occurrence of the title notarios at Thebes. It appears at the beginning of O.Medin.HabuCopt. 163.6, but much of the writing is lost, including the context in which it appears, and no name survives. On this basis, nothing can be said of the function of a notarios.87

вІҐвІЃП© and вІҐвІЃвІ-вІџ The Coptic terms вІҐвІЃП© and вІҐвІЃвІ-вІџ(sach and sacho) both occur in Theban documents. They can mean “scribe” and “great scribe” (perhaps “senior/chief scribe”). When they occur without further qualification, they can also mean “master” (regardless of the use of the definite article), as a mark of respect, or can be used in reference to a craftsman.88 In O.CrumST 186.16, we find вІЇвІЃП© вІ«вІџвІ“вІѓвІЃвІ™вІџвІ© “master Phoibammon,” and the term appears together with the title Apa in a few texts: for example, O.CrumST 242.11–12: вІЎвІЃвІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІ§ вІ›вІҐвІџвІ› вІ‰вІ§вІ§(вІЃвІ‰вІ“вІЏвІ©) вІЎвІҐвІЃП© вІЃвІЎвІЃ вІ™вІ±вІ©вІҐвІЏвІҐ “my beloved esteemed brother, master Apa Moses”; and P.Mon.Epiph. 397.5–6: вІ›М…вІ§вІ‰вІ§вІЃвІЃПҐ вІ›М…вІЎвІҐвІЃП© вІЃвІѓвІЈвІЃП©вІЃвІ™ вІ‰М…вІЎвІџвІ“вІ•вІџвІ›вІџвІ™вІџвІҐ вІ›вІЃвІЎвІЃ вІ“М€вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ “and give it to master Abraham, the steward of Apa Johannes” (even here, where Abraham is also a steward, it is not definite that the use of вІҐвІЃП© is honorific). Discerning the use of the term is especially difficult in texts that are broken, such as O.Vind.Copt. 41.2: [вІЎвІЈвІџ]вІҐ вІ‘вІЏ вІ›М…вІ§вІЃвІЎвІҐвІЃП© вІЎвІЃвІ§вІ—вІ±вІ—[вІ‰В .В .В .] “according to what master Patlole [В .В .В .В ].” In two Page 20 →examples, вІҐвІЃвІ-вІџmay indicate scribe, when it occurs after the name, rather than before it, and is used by the person writing the text.89 O.CrumVC 97B.9–12: вІ§вІЃвІЃвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІЃвІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІ§ вІ›вІ‰вІ“вІ±вІ§ вІЎвІЈвІ‰вІҐвІѓ(вІ©вІ§вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ) вІѓвІ“вІ•вІ§вІ±вІЈ П©вІ“М€вІ§вІ›вІ§вІЃвІ©вІ‰вІ“вІ‡ вІЎвІҐвІЃвІ-ⲟ“Give it to my beloved Father, the priest Victor, from the chief scribe David.” O.CrumST 273.1–3: вІ§вІЃвІЃвІҐ вІ›вІЃвІ›вІ§вІ±вІ›вІ‰ вІ›П©вІЃвІЈвІ±вІ› вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ›вІ•вІЃвІ™вІџвІ©вІ— П©вІ“вІ§вІ› вІ‘вІ‰вІџвІ‡вІџвІ§вІџвІҐ вІЎвІҐвІЃвІ-вІџ вІ›вІ§вІ™вІ›П-вІЎвІЃП«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ “Give it to the camelherd Antone (son) of Aaron, from the chief scribe of Tmenk-pa-Djeme Theodotos.”90 Finally, a fragment surviving from the beginning of O.Vind.Copt. 324.3 refers to a village scribe вІЎвІҐвІЃвІ-вІ± вІ™М…вІЎвІ§МЈ[вІ“вІ™вІ‰], possibly one Alexandros, whose name is almost entirely lost from line 2 (вІЃвІ—.[В .В .В .В ]). However, without a secure provenance and with no further information, the assignation of this text to Thebes is not certain. Except for logographos, which refers to Petros in his capacity as a tax collector or at least within the administration of taxes in the area, it is hard to distinguish between the other terms that occur: grammateus, nomikos, and sacho (we can here ignore notarios, which occurs only once and in a lost context, as well as sach, for which there are no certain instances referring to a scribe). One of the few distinctions that occurs is that the use of grammateus at Djeme is confined to the preconquest period. Insufficient evidence exists to conclude that the

terms had different meanings, and it is possible that all terms should simply be translated as “scribe,” rather than as designating different categories of scribe, such as notary (for nomikos). Most striking, again, is that the majority of scribes who demonstrate a high level of skill and wrote a variety of text types did not use a title at all. Yet they are all surely to be considered as professionals. These men stand in contrast to a greater abundance of writers who were less proficient. Such writers—to set them apart from scribes as a professional category—range in ability from those barely able to sign their own names to proficient writers who could write short texts, including letters, and who occur Page 21 →frequently as witnesses to legal documents or amanuenses signing on behalf of others.91 Women occur as writers (e.g., Tsie and Susanne in the Frange dossier), but none can be considered a professional scribe. Among the professional scribes that wrote legal and administrative documents, Aristophanes is unparalleled. To date, 142 texts are certainly attributed to him.92 This number is lower than that for Frange, but Frange’s texts are short, and their combined length is far less than that of Aristophanes’ texts. One-fifth of Aristophanes’ dossier comprises long legal documents, to which nothing that the monk wrote can be compared.93

Page 22 →

Chapter 2 Building Aristophanes’ Dossier Constructing Aristophanes’ dossier is a large and complex task, involving over 140 texts, ranging in length and subject matter. To understand how he functioned as a scribe, it is necessary to know not only what he wrote but also when he wrote his documents and what happened to them afterward. Establishing their timeline and physical context is essential in reconstructing the events that they record, in Aristophanes’ life and the lives of others. The ramifications of this reconstruction extend beyond the immediate world of this corpus.

2.1. Assigning Texts to Aristophanes The main criterion for assigning texts to Aristophanes is the presence of his signature at the end of the document.94 This comprises either just his name, Aristophanes, or his name together with his patronymic, Johannes. All examples without the patronymic are certainly by the same man. While his writing of his name varied, orthographically and paleographically (fig. 2.1), Aristophanes was not a very common name at Thebes, and there are no possible candidates to compete against him as the scribe of texts signed simply “Aristophanes.” Only two other men bore this name. One, the son of Papnoute, a witness in P.KRU 59.15, was not from Djeme but from Tseu, in the Coptite nome. Further, he may have been illiterate, as Zacharias son of Johannes, whose witness statement follows the son of Papnoute’s and is written in the same hand, Page 23 →may have written for both men. The second Aristophanes, the son of Philotheos, is attested only in P.KRU 71.68, as a witness (who signed by his own hand), and his hand is very different (a closely written novice hand with few ligatures and large, round letters).95 Fig. 2.1. Aristophanes’ signature, P.KRU 41.115 (top) and 48.73 (bottom). Or. 6462 and 6721/1. В© British Library Board. In total, 120 documents bear Aristophanes’ signature, and an additional 22 can be attributed to him on the basis of other criteria. Several permutations of his signature are found. With the exception of P.KRU 8, all are written in Greek (for this reason, P.KRU 8 is not included in the following list).96 The following list presents the different abbreviation techniques that Aristophanes employed in writing either his name or his patronymic. It does not note variations in the writing of “υἱός вЂson,’” which can be written in full or in an abbreviated form or omitted entirely. To best represent how Aristophanes wrote his name, the Greek is not expanded, and accents and breathings are omitted. (I)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП† / (53): O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 521; Оџ.Crum 422; O.Hamb.Copt. inv. V; O.Kelsey inv. 25077, 25262; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242; O.Petr.Mus. 559, 574; O.Vind.Copt. 87, 89; P.Schutzbriefe 10, 27; P.Stras.Copt. 65; SB Kopt. II 956, 957, 958, 959, 963, 964, 965, 967, 968, 972, 973, 974, 976, 977, 978, 982, 983, 987, 989, 990, 991, 992, 995, 998, 1000, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1024, 1025 (II)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП† / О№П‰ (11): O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943; O.Fitz. E.P.533; O.Giss. inv. 551; O.Heerlen BL 278; O.Hyvernat 17; O.Torin. inv. 1450; P.KRU 39, 52; P.Schutzbriefe 23; SB Kopt. II 980, III 1424 Page 24 → (III)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП† / О№П‰О± (3): O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88; P.Stras.Copt. 28; SB XVIII 14037 (IV)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП† / О№П‰О±ОЅОЅОїП… (1): P.KRU 41 (V)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП† / О№П‰О±ОЅОЅОїП… (1): P.KRU 17 (VI)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅ (2) : O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231, 234 (VII)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅО· О№П‰ О± (1): O.Medin.HabuCopt. 2497 (VIII)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅО·П‚ (1) : O.Vind.Copt. 90

(IX)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП… (3) : O.Crum 423; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 235, 236 (X)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП… [В .В .В .В ] (1) : P.KRU 9598 (XI)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП… О№П‰ (1) : P.KRU 10 (XII)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП… О№П‰О±ОЅОЅ ОїП… (5): P.KRU 11, 26, 40, 58, 87 (XIII)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП… О№П‰О±ОЅОЅОїП… (1) : P.KRU 25 (XIV)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП…П‚ (27) : O.BM EA 31805; O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 303; O.CrumST 415a, 415b; O.Duram. inv. 1951.24; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 228; O.Petrie UC 328280; O.Vind.Copt. 88; PSI inv. 68; SB Kopt. II 955, 960, 961, 962, 975, 979, 981, 984, 985, 988, 993, 996, 997, 1001, 1003, 1004, 1022, 1023 (XV)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅО·П‚ О№П‰ (1) : P.Schutzbriefe 28 (XVI)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП…П‚ О№П‰ (2) : O.Ashm. inv. 532; SB Kopt. II 1008 (XVII)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП…П‚ О№П‰О±ОЅОЅ ОїП… (2): P.KRU 14, 15 (XVIII)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП…П‚ О№П‰О±ОЅОЅОїП… (2) : P.KRU 27, 47 (XIX)О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О±ОЅОїП…П‚ О№П‰О±ОЅОЅОїП…П‚ (1) : P.KRU 48 (XX)Lost (14) : O.BM EA 44848; P.KRU 33, 43, 53, 103; P.Lond.Copt. I 444/1; SB Kopt. II 966, 969, 970, 971, 986, 994, 999, 1002 (XXI)Not written (8) : O.Col. inv. 154, 160; O.Crum 147; O.CrumST 430, 444; P.CLT 3; P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B Aristophanes wrote his name as part of a longer scribal notation, of which two main types are found: (A) ОґО№бѕЅ бјђОјОїбї¦ NN бјђОіО-ОЅОµП„Ої “Written by me,NN” and (B) NN бј”ОіПЃО±П€О± “NN wrote.” The longer form, A, is found only in papyrus documents, and the short form, B, occurs only in texts written on ostraca. In most instances, this difference is predicated on the amount of space available. Variant B was used on ostraca as a result of the tight space constraints involved, which necessitated a shorter statement within which there was rarely room for his Page 25 →patronymic. Indeed, Aristophanes often split his signature over multiple lines at the bottom point of an ostracon.99 The highest level of variation is found with form A, when Aristophanes was rarely affected by limited space. Except when encumbered by other factors, as was the case in P.KRU 8 and 52, there are no patterns in the writing of his signature in papyrus documents. The variation here is free and not dependent on any other factor. Several texts lack a signature. The main reason for this is damage to the manuscript, whether papyrus or ostracon, but in a small number of cases, no signature was ever written. In the absence of his signature, texts are assigned to Aristophanes on the basis of combined features: the context of the document, its linguistic features, and its paleography. It is not possible to assign texts to Aristophanes using any of these criteria in isolation, especially his handwriting. On one hand, a degree of variation is found in his writing across this dossier, depending on various factors, including the document type, the writing medium, and his age. As will be argued in chapter 6.2, Aristophanes was part of a specific school of scribal practice that existed in Djeme from the second quarter of the eighth century, which was the result of a wider movement in Egypt at this time. Consequently, in his style, he shows great similarities with his contemporaries. In many respects, it is futile to compare the writing of specific examples of text between unsigned and signed manuscripts, whether of entire words or certain ligature groups, as other scribes exhibit the same features.100 Further, with such a large dossier, it is easy to see similarities—if not exact forms—for most paleographic features, ignoring any nonstandard forms.101 Using the combined set of criteria, it is possible to attribute the following texts to Aristophanes, although there are surely some instances in which the attribution is the result of my familiarity with his hand, in combination with the subjectivity expressed by the original editors in assigning texts to him. Page 26 → Damaged Texts O.BM EA 44848

Although less than half of this protection pass survives, it can be assigned to Aristophanes on paleographic and

formulaic grounds. Especially notable in the latter respect is the use of the plural writing ОјОµО№О¶О¶ (ОјОµО№О¶ПЊП„ОµПЃОїО№), which only Aristophanes used in protection passes (P.Schutzbriefe 27.1 and 28.1). He also used it, with the abbreviation ОјОµО№О¶\П‰/, in P.KRU 10.2.102

SB Kopt. II 966, 969, 970, 971, 986, 994, 999, 1002

Of these eight tax receipts, four (SB Kopt. II 966, 969, 970, 971) were written on 18 Epiph, year 11, and two (SB Kopt. II 999 and 1002) were written on 9 Thoth, year 11. These dated texts form part of two larger groups of receipts written on these days, for which see appendix 3. All the receipts, as well as SB Kopt. II 994, are countersigned by Andreas and Petros, and SB Kopt. II 969 and 970 are countersigned on the reverse by Abraham. Aristophanes, Andreas, and Petros collaborated in the collection of taxes and signed a large number of receipts (of which Abraham countersigned a smaller number). Both the organization of tax collection and Aristophanes’ collaboration with Andreas, Petros, and others are discussed in chapter 4.3. The formulary in these receipts is that which Aristophanes employed as standard. An image of SB Kopt. II 971 is provided in the original edition, and a comparison of this with the images of other tax receipts by Aristophanes shows a remarkable degree of homogeneity in their paleography.103 However, in both respects, Aristophanes’ receipts have a high level of similarity with those written by Cyriacus son of Petros.104 Aristophanes’ receipts can be attributed certainly to him based on their date and because Cyriacus’ receipts are never signed by anybody else. Traces at the bottom of SB Kopt. II 971 indicate that Aristophanes originally signed this receipt, but it is possible that he did not sign other receipts in this group, as appears to be the case with O.Col. inv. 154 and Page 27 →160 (see below). Only the beginning section of SB Kopt. II 986 survives, but it certainly formed part of this same dossier of tax receipts. Fig. 2.2. Comparison between P.KRU 33.4 (left) and 11.12 (right). Or. 4876 and 6721/9. В© British Library Board. P.KRU 33

Very little of P.KRU 33 survives. The surviving text conforms paleographically with Aristophanes’ other documents. Of particular note is the ligatured words ⲡⲣⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲧⲁⲓ “the sale deed, this,” which show the same ligature pattern and letter formations between P.KRU 33 and 11 (fig. 2.2). P.KRU 43

The beginning and end of P.KRU 43 are lost, including the scribe’s notation. There are some substantial areas of damage in the second half of the text, where the ink is mostly effaced, but it can be securely assigned to Aristophanes on linguistic and paleographic grounds. One formulaic example serves to highlight the similarities in both respects. In the long settlement documents that Aristophanes wrote (see the list at the end of section 2.3), the time frame in which arbitration occurred is recorded, either in the current or previous years: ϫⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲇⲏ ϩⲙ ⲡⲉⲓⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲕⲏ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲛἰ(ν)δ(ικτίωνος) β “In this current 2nd indiction year” (P.KRU 43.8–9). This is otherwise found only in P.KRU 39.12–13 and 41.19–20, both by Aristophanes (it is omitted in P.KRU 40, as this is a truncated document written in parallel to P.KRU 39). Johannake son of Johannes, the scribe of P.KRU 45 (and Aristophanes’ brother; see chapter 6.1), used an almost identical formula, except for the rendering of the year: ϫⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲇⲏ ϩⲙ ⲡⲉⲓⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲕⲏ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲟⲅⲇⲟⲏⲥ “In this current eighth year” (P.KRU 45.16–17), that is, ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ, not ἰ(ν)δ(ικτίωνος), with the number written in full, rather than by a numeral. Only three other scribes use a variant of this formula: Psate son of Pisrael (P.KRU 36.16, 37.10–11, 44.8–9), Johannes son of Lazarus (P.KRU 38.18, 42.4–5), and Cyriacus son of Petros (P.KRU 50.13–14), but none used the same formula—or exhibit the same consistency in its use—as Aristophanes.

British Library Board. Page 28 →Fig 2.3 shows the text of the formula itself from P.KRU 43 and 39 (the example in P.KRU 41 is too damaged in this area to be of much comparative use). Aristophanes’ writing is the same in both cases, in terms of overall appearance and specific letter formation. The only significant difference between the two passages is the writing of вІ‰вІ§вІ•вІЏ, with different вІ‰вІ§ ligatures and writing of вІ•, but this variation is within the range of what is expected within a single person’s handwriting. In P.KRU 41.20, this phrase is preserved intact, and the writing is the same as the P.KRU 43 example. P.KRU 43 and 41 also share the Greek writing of beta as the numeral 2.105 P.KRU 53

P.KRU 53, an agreement concerning debt, is a short text. Excluding P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B, it is the shortest text on papyrus that Aristophanes wrote. It does not use the formulae found in long legal texts and is thus difficult to compare to other texts in this dossier. The papyrus that it is written on is of poor quality, and the ink is faint and uneven. The lines are not straight but slope down, apart from the first three lines, which bow in the middle. Its individual wordsВ typically agree in general formation and appearance with their counterparts in Aristophanes’ better-produced documents. Beyond its paleography, this text belongs to a group concerning the family of Daniel son of Pachom, with whom Aristophanes was frequently involved. Aristophanes acted as witness in P.KRU 116 (part of this archive), in which his writing shows some of the same features found here, including poor letter formations,Page 29 → but a section of his statement there is lost, and little else can be said about it. P.KRU 116, among the last texts that Aristophanes appears in, was written between 750 and 760,106 which may suggest that both texts were written at a time when Aristophanes’ writing started to show the effects of old age; the problems associated with his age and the degradation in his writing are discussed below. P.KRU 103

The original manuscript for this text is now lost. Walter Crum, the text’s original editor, attributed it to Aristophanes. The document is so damaged that little survives with which to verify its authorship based on a comparison of its orthography and formulae. P.Lond.Copt. I.444/1

Only a small piece from the top of this papyrus survives, bearing the first three lines of the document. On formulaic and paleographic grounds (the Greek invocation and date and the use of two scripts), what little is preserved conforms to Aristophanes’ style. No signature written O.Col. inv. 154 and 160

In form and writing, these tax receipts conform to Aristophanes’ standard practice. O.Col. inv. 160 was written on Paone 16, indiction year 11, and was signed by Andreas and Petros; O.Col. inv. 154 was written on Pachons 30, indiction year 13 and was signed by Papnoute and Dioscorus. No other receipts are known for Paone 16, but on the second date, Aristophanes, Papnoute, and Dioscorus together wrote and signed O.Crum 422 and O.Medin.HabuCopt. 239. As noted above, Aristophanes’ receipts are very similar to those written by Cyriacus son of Petros, but the presence of the signatories assigns them certainly to Aristophanes.107 Another point that confirms this assignation is that both these receipts are for taxes of the tenth indiction year, while all receipts written by Cyriacus are for taxes of the ninth indiction year. Page 30 → O.Crum 147 and O.CrumST 430

These two ostraca record individual property parcels, which were used in the division of property disputes. O.Crum 147 provides the third share of the house of Germanos that is the object of the settlements recorded in P.KRU 39 and 40, both written by Aristophanes. The original editor assigned them both to Aristophanes. O.CrumST 444 and O.Medin.HabuCopt. 24

Both ostraca are name lists. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 24 includes Aristophanes’ name, which is clearly written in his own hand. O.CrumST 444 (which is provided its first full edition in appendix 2) can be attributed to him on paleographic grounds. P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B

These tax demands are unsigned (as is the case with all known Coptic demands) and are the only ones from Djeme.108 Paleographically, they match other texts by Aristophanes in letter and word formation, in both his Coptic and Greek scripts (on which see chapter 3.1). Aristophanes can be assigned securely to these documents not only on paleographic grounds but on two points of context: Daniel son of Pachom, the taxpayer named in text A, appears several times in Aristophanes’ dossier; more important, this document was written as part of Aristophanes’ role as a tax administrator.109 P.CLT 3

This letter petitioning for three monks to travel to the Fayum represents a document type not otherwise attested at Djeme and does not include formulae found in Aristophanes’ standard document types. It is the only document by him that is connected with the monastery of Apa Paul. His role in its writing should be understood in terms of his role in tax administration, as the monks in question can only travel because their tax payments are up to date. In addition, the text’s paleography conforms to the manner of Aristophanes, in both Greek and Coptic scripts, as does its use of Greek for extended passages.110 Page 31 → The Problem of P.CLT 6 Aristophanes acted as amanuensis in P.CLT 6.54–58, a communal tax agreement between villagers from Djeme, providing measures should certain individuals not be able to contribute toward the naval duty. In his introduction to P.CLT, Arthur Schiller tentatively attributed the entire text of this agreement to Aristophanes.111 Yet the scribal notation has not survived (if one was ever written), and since the papyrus’ current location is unknown,112 its authorship cannot be confirmed on paleographic grounds. As this document concerns taxation, it is possible that Aristophanes wrote it, during the phase of his career when he was heavily involved in tax administration, but a number of points do not support this. Contradicting his suggestion that the text was written by Aristophanes, Schiller labeled the witness statement supposedly written by Aristophanes as being in a third hand. In fact, according to Schiller’s edition, none of the writers that appear at the end of the document are the scribe of the main text. These individuals include Cyriacus son of Petros, who also wrote tax receipts and legal documents,113 and Isaac son of Zacharias, the scribe of P.KRU 70. On formulaic grounds, that the invocation of the Holy Trinity at the beginning of the document is not that employed by Aristophanes (or, for that matter, Cyriacus and Isaac) suggests that “hand 1” in the document belonged to somebody not named elsewhere therein.114 Page 32 →The document cannot be attributed to Aristophanes. While the papyrus is lost and cannot be physically checked, a number of philological peculiarities diverge from what is expected from him, such as the use of вІЃвІ‰вІ“ for вІЃвІ“ (lines 8: вІ›вІЃвІ‰вІ“; 13 and 20: вІ§вІЃвІ‰вІ“; 49: вІЃвІ‰вІ“П«вІ“ and вІЃвІ‰вІ“вІЎвІ—вІЏвІЈвІџвІ©; 68: вІЃвІ‰вІ“вІ•вІЃвІЃвІҐ), as well as formulaic variants unattested in any other document that he certainly wrote. A comprehensive list of those variants is too extensive to provide here, but note вІҐвІџвІЈП« вІҐвІџ вІ›П«вІџвІ‰вІ“вІҐ “it is valid and authoritative” (line 64), rather than the

synonymous вІҐвІџвІЈП« вІҐП-вІ™П-вІџвІ™/ ПҐвІџвІЈП« ПҐП-вІ™П-вІџвІ™(P.KRU 8.27, 10.59, 11.57, 14.85, 15.88–89, 17.44, 25.47, 27.60, 39.69, 40.33, 41.98, 47.67, 48.55, 52.27–28, 58.24, 87.41, 95.32). On these grounds, P.CLT 6 can confidently be excluded from Aristophanes’ dossier. Similarly, P.CLT 7, a deed of sale, should be excluded from the list of documents that Aristophanes wrote.115 While Aristophanes’ body of work shows a degree of variation between his legal documents (e.g., the use of вІ‰вІ›П-вІ“П«вІ‰П-вІ“П«in P.KRU 27.42–43 rather than his standard вІ‡вІ“вІЃ вІ-вІ‰вІ“вІЈвІџвІҐ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІ-вІ‰вІ“вІЈвІЃin P.KRU 10.42, 11.37, 14.51, and 15.50 for “from hand to hand”), the number of variations in P.CLT 7 far exceed these and are found in all sections of the document. In fact, many of the same variations found in P.CLT 6 are found here, including the use of вІҐвІџвІЈП« вІҐвІџ вІ›П«вІџвІ‰вІ“вІҐ and the orthographic replacement of вІЃвІ“ with вІЃвІ‰вІ“. It is quite likely that the same scribe wrote P.CLT 6 and 7, but whoever this scribe was, it was not Aristophanes.

2.2. Amanuensis and Witness Aristophanes’ services as a scribe were required not only for the writing of entire documents but also for other aspects of documentary production. He served as amanuensis for individuals unable to sign their own name, doing so within texts that he wrote as well as texts written by other scribes. He acted as witness to documents that he did not write. Apart from rare instances in which the first party was able to write by his or her own hand, the opening formulary of documents stated that the first party provided an amanuensis, a П©вІ©вІЎвІџвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰вІ©вІҐ (бЅ‘ПЂОїОіПЃО±П†ОµПЌП‚), to sign the documentPage 33 → for that party.116 Within the Djeme legal documents, there is no consistent pattern concerning who fulfilled this role. The first parties in P.KRU 15 (Damianos son of Cosma) and 41 (Epiphanius son of Pcher) were able to sign by their own hand, but this was not the case in the majority of texts.117 Aristophanes twice wrote the first party’s statement of consent, for Tanope daughter of Abraham (and wife of Solomon) in P.KRU 8 and for Zacharias, Ephraim, Maria, and Takoum, the children of Psate, in P.KRU 10. Other writers signed for the first party in the remaining texts. Table 2.1 collates this information. In some instances, the name of the first party is lost at the beginning of the document, normally when it has suffered substantial damage. Where the end of the papyrus survives, the first party can be identified by the position of the party’s statement—it (typically) is the first statement written after the closing of the main body of the text—and the use of вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“(ПѓП„ОїО№П‡Оµбї–), which almost exclusively marks the assent of the first party.118 Standard practice was for the amanuensis to note that he had written for the person, but the reason why is not stated, other than that the witness himself was illiterate; for example, Petros the priest (P.KRU 15.100–101) wrote for several men because вІ™вІ‰вІ©вІ›вІџвІ“ вІ›вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ “they do not know how to write” (in this phrase, вІ›вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ is often omitted).119 Several points emerge from table 2.1: (1) it was not necessary for first parties to write a statement of consent or have one written for them; (2) if able to write, first parties wrote their own statements; (3) if first parties could not write, either the scribe of the document or another capable individual could write for them. Apart from when they signed by themselves or when Aristophanes signed for them, there is no obvious reason why certain amanuenses wrote for certain parties. Marcus son of Papnoute and Isaac son of Constantine appear in several of Aristophanes’ texts (both are discussed further below)Page 35 → and may well have been men whom Aristophanes trusted or who lived or worked close to where Aristophanes wrote the documents and who were convenient for such purposes. If they were, the choice of amanuensis may have been Aristophanes’ own.

Text P.KRU 8 P.KRU 10

Page 34 →Table 2.1. Amanuenses for first parties in Aristophanes’ texts First party Amanuensis (П©вІ©вІЎвІџвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰вІ©вІҐ) Tanope daughter of Abraham Aristophanes son of Johannes Zacharias et al. Aristophanes son of Johannes

P.KRU 11

Aristophanes son of Johannes

Aristophanes son of Johannes

P.KRU 14 P.KRU 17 P.KRU 25 P.KRU 26

Papas son of Theodoros Shenoute son of Phoibammon Daniel son of NN Zenon son of NN

No statement of consent Marcus son of Papnoute (also witness) No statement of consent

P.KRU 27 P.KRU 33 P.KRU 39

No separate statement: incorporated into the body of the text1 Ananias son of Pses Marcus son of Papnoute (also witness) Lost Lost Stephanos son of Germanos et al. Marcus son of Anastasios

Shenoute son of Germanos et al. Not stated, possibly Shenoute himself2 Lost, perhaps Stephanos3 Lost4 P.KRU 47 Daniel son of Isidore No statement of consent P.KRU 48 Paulos, Marcus, Leontios, et al. Marcus son of Papnoute P.KRU 52 Petros son of Comes No statement of consent P.KRU 53 Maria daughter of Isidore No separate statement: incorporated into the body of the text5 P.KRU 58 Isaac son of Abraham No statement of consent P.KRU 87 Georgios son of Marinnos Isaac son of Constantine P.KRU 95+101 Mariam daughter of Daniel Nohe, the priest P.KRU 40 P.KRU 43

1The

final section of P.KRU 26—the execution of the document—is nonstandard and truncated: вІ‰вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ±вІЈП« вІџвІ©вІ› вІЃвІ“вІҐвІ™вІ›вІ§вІҐ вІЃвІ©вІ± вІ§вІ“вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ “As your surety, then, I have drawn it up and I agree to it” (lines 23–24). Zenon, the first party, is not mentioned again by name. 2With

the damage to the end of the papyrus, it is difficult to confirm the number of different people that wrote the witness statements, as nobody took credit for having written them. Further, as there is no other example of Shenoute’s hand (if he was even literate), there is no basis for comparison. The suggestion that Shenoute wrote for himself remains just one possibility. Till (1953b, 204) suggests that Johannake, whose statement on line 34 of this document is mostly lost (the reading of the name is doubtful), may have written the subscription. It is difficult to reconstruct the necessary formula in the lacuna here. 3Only

a few traces of P.KRU 43.66–72 survive: line 67 is completely lost, but line 66 contains part of the final clause of the document; line 68 is almost certainly the first line of the first party’s statement of consent: [+ вІЃ]вІ›вІџвІ• вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ«вІЃвІ›вІџвІҐ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰В .В .В . “[+] I, Stephanos the sonВ .В .В .” Earlier in the text, first-person singular pronouns are used: вІ›вІЃвІҐвІ›вІЏвІ© вІ›вІ§вІЃвІ“ПЈвІЈвІЎвІџвІ©вІџвІ›П©вІџвІ© вІ‰вІѓвІџвІ— вІ›вІ§вІЎвІ‰ “my siblings, whom I already mentioned above” (lines 23–24); вІџвІ©вІ‡вІ‰ вІЃвІ›вІџвІ• вІ™вІ› вІ›вІЃПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІ›вІЃвІ•вІ—вІЏвІЈ(вІџвІ›вІџвІ™вІџвІҐ) “neither me nor my siblings and my heirs” (line 62). This suggests that the first party comprised only one individual. The use of the singular first-person independent pronoun, вІЃвІ›вІџвІ•, before Stephanos’ name supports this suggestion. The two lines following line 68 are entirely lost. However, in line 73, Maritha daughter of Moses consents (вІ§вІ“вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-вІ“, for the use of which by witnesses see above and n. 25), in the hand of an amanuensis (name damaged). If this term is correctly applied and not used to indicate that she bore witness (which would be exceptional since, as noted by Wilfong [2002, 89], women could not act as such), the first party comprised multiple individuals, and the use of singular first-person pronouns in the document is a mistake by Aristophanes. However, Maritha is only attested at this point in this document, and there are no other attestations of her. 4After

the gap resulting from the loss of lines 69 and 70, Amonios son of Marcus recorded that he wrote for multiple people. This group may have included Stephanos, but his inclusion cannot be determined certainly. Crum indicated a change in hand at line 70 (the change, from the second to the third hand on the manuscript, can no longer be determined by consultation of the papyrus, due to the document’s current condition), in which case Amonios wrote not for Stephanos but for individuals whose names are lost in lacuna.

5P.KRU

53 is a short text and contains few elements of the formulae found in longer documents. As with P.KRU 26, the statement of consent is incorporated into the final clause, without again mentioning the first party’s name: вІЃвІ“вІҐвІ™вІ›вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ‰вІ…вІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› вІЃвІ©вІ± вІ§вІ“вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-ⲉⲓ“I have drawn up this document and I agree to it” (line 8).

Additionally, from the eighteen documents that he wrote that have witness statements, Aristophanes acted as amanuensis in six of them, for eleven different individuals in total:120 Athanasios son of Georgios (P.KRU 14, 15), Comes the dioiketes (P.KRU 14), Chael son of Psemo (P.KRU 17, 87), David son of Cyriacus (P.KRU 15), David son of Pilloustrios (P.KRU 87), Jacob son of Athanasios (P.KRU 8), Phraes son of Joseph (P.KRU 26), Psyros son of Pesow (P.KRU 8), and Apa Victor son of Comes (P.KRU 14). Except in P.KRU 8, in which he wrote the entire document, there is no clear reason why he wrote for these people. The order of the witness statements in P.KRU 14 best illustrates this: Isaac son of Constantine wrote for two men (Constantine son of Isaac and Papas son of Athanasios) but did not act as witness himself (lines 88–93); Papnoute son of Stephanos bore witness (lines 94–95); Aristophanes wrote for Comes, Athanasios, and Apa Victor (lines 96–99); Papnoute son of Stephanos wrote again, this time on behalf of a witness whose name is lost (lines 100–102). Aristophanes was not the only person present who was able to act as amanuensis. The order of the statements indicates that Papnoute signed and remained until all witnesses had written. He did not sign and leave; thus he was present at a later point to sign for the witness whose name is lost. This raises two questions: why did Aristophanes sign at all, and why did he not sign for the witness whose name is lost, when that statement immediately followed the statement he had just written? The bearing this evidence has on documentary production is addressed in chapter 3.3. Aristophanes acted as amanuensis in three documents written by other scribes. He wrote for Athanasios son of Sanchem in P.CLT 6.54–58 and for Petros son of Severos in P.KRU 50.74–77. P.KRU 30 is damaged throughout, but Aristophanes’ name can be reconstructed in lines 40–41, where he states that he wrote for other people, although for whom is not clear.121 He acted only as a witnessPage 36 → in three other texts: P.KRU 45.66, 46.44, and 116.11. While it is not possible to explain Aristophanes’ role as amanuensis in his own documents, it is possible to provide reasons for why he appeared in these other texts (excluding P.KRU 30, which is too damaged to allow any conclusions to be drawn). P.KRU 45, 46, and 50 are part of a dossier of ten documents that concern the affairs of a single family, of which Aristophanes was the scribe of four. Two of these, P.KRU 45 and 46, were written by his brother, Johannake, and concern the same matter between the sisters Abessa and Takoum that is recorded in P.KRU 25 and 47, which Aristophanes wrote. P.KRU 50, written by Cyriacus son of Petros, with whom Aristophanes must have been well acquainted, concerns the same issue that lies at the heart of P.KRU 48, which involves members of the same family as that of Abessa and Takoum. Aristophanes’ intimate connection with this family led to his involvement in the writing of seven documents that recorded their activities. A different family, that of Daniel son of Pachom, appears in four documents written by Aristophanes, and members of the same family appear in P.KRU 116, which he witnessed. In total, social ties link Aristophanes to four texts that he witnessed. His involvement in P.CLT 6, in which he acted as amanuensis and did not sign or witness himself, did not have personal motives. This communal agreement was written when he was heavily involved in tax administration, and it is therefore connected to his main professional activity at that time, as has already been noted. When Aristophanes wrote his witness statements and those of others, he did so in Coptic.122 These, together with P.KRU 8 (the only text not signed in Page 37 →Greek) and 11 (in which he is the first party), reveal how he wrote his own name in his native language. Several of his statements are damaged, but those that are intact show two variant forms: вІЃвІЈвІ“вІҐвІ§вІџвІ«вІЃвІ›вІЏ son of вІ“вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ (P.CLT 6.55; P.KRU 10.61–62; 11.10, 59; 17.52; 45.66; 46.44; 50.75–76) and вІЃвІЈвІ“вІҐвІ§вІџвІ«вІЃвІ›вІЏвІҐ son of вІ“вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ (P.KRU 26.30–31, 87.56–57). In P.KRU 8.31, 14.98, and 116.11, his name is restored with final вІҐ in the original editions, but this restoration is not necessary, considering the greater number of attestations without it. Variations with final sigma are more common in the Greek attestations of his signature, as demonstrated above in section 2.1. As with the writing of his notation, this variation appears to be entirely free,

with no discernible motivation.

2.3. Composition of the Dossier Connections between the texts in Aristophanes’ dossier—the financial and personal concerns of numerous men and women—are the subject of chapters 4 and 5, but it is worthwhile to note first what document types are represented. By far the most numerous category is tax receipts, making up approximately 75 percent of the dossier. This is in document count rather than overall length, as these are the shortest texts that Aristophanes wrote. In addition to tax receipts, several other texts are connected with taxation: tax demands, permits for safe conduct, a request for a travel pass, and a communal tax agreement (even if Aristophanes did not write P.CLT 6, he was still involved in it). This group reveals his activity in an official administrative capacity; the remaining texts show him working as a private scribe, writing for villagers. These private documents include deeds of sale, settlements of disputes, donations of children, agreements, and shorter, more mundane texts. The longer legal texts include the name of the document type within them, identifying to which specific category they belong. This is especially important with damaged texts, as it serves to clarify what main issue is at hand. For example, P.KRU 25 is labeled a вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ “deed of sale” (line 46), but much of its formulary is that typically associated with settlements of dispute: the body of Page 38 →the text begins with reference to an earlier sale and subsequent legal action undertaken before an Arab official (the amir), yet the transfer of property is made legitimate through means of a sale, rather than a settlement. A similar situation occurs in P.KRU 26, in which the resolution of an issue surrounding inherited property is again recorded in a sale (line 23: вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ), and so is different to other inheritance documents, including P.KRU 39, 40, 41, and 43 (see the list below for how they are labeled). In both cases, a transfer of money is involved, which makes the designation “sale” most appropriate, even if the transfers are not straightforward affairs, as are other sales in the dossier. The transfer of a dowry in P.KRU 17 is also a вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ (line 5), but no exchange of money is noted there, although this information may be lost in the missing sections. A few comments are necessary concerning the designation of other document types. In P.KRU 48, the designation вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІ§вІ“вІ•вІЏ only survives in the executory clause of the document (the beginning is lost). There are no cases among Aristophanes’ dossier in which the designation at the end of the text is different from that at the beginning. The general practice is to shorten the designation at the end: for example, вІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІҐвІ™вІџвІҐ вІ‰вІ§вІџ вІ›вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІҐвІ“вІҐ becomes вІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІҐвІ™вІџвІҐ in P.KRU 39.68, 40.32, and 47.66 and вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІҐвІ“вІҐ in P.KRU 41.96.123 It is possible that the full designation for P.KRU 48 should be вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІ§вІ“вІ•вІЏ П©вІџвІ™вІџвІ—вІџвІ…вІ‰вІ“вІЃ, various spellings of which occur in P.Lond. IV (1587.15, 16, 24; 1595.15; 1599.18; 1611.6). There are examples of texts by different scribes in which a different term is used in each instance, but these are largely synonyms: for example, вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ and вІ±вІ›вІЏ as used by Shenoute son of Shmentsney in P.KRU 1.17, 105 and 4.12, 81–82). P.KRU 53 is simply an вІ‰вІ…вІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› “document.” This generic term serves to distinguish it from the more complex documents. Unlike other scribes of tax receipts, Aristophanes did not refer to the receipt itself within the text. Psate son of Pisrael, for example, referred to receipts as вІ‰вІ›вІ§вІЃвІ…вІ“вІЃ, for which term see chapter 4.2 and chapter 6.2. The more mundane texts reflecting daily life and written on ostraca—for example, (nontax) receipts, name lists, and property divisions—were never labeled by Aristophanes. As transient objects that were readily discarded, there was no need to title them. Page 39 → Composition of Aristophanes’ Dossier Administrative Documents

Tax receipts (106): O.Ashm. inv. 532; O.BM EA 31805; O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 303, 521; O.Col. inv. 154, 160;

O.Crum 422, 423; O.CrumST 415a, 415b; O.Duram inv. 1951.24; O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943; O.Fitz. E.P.533; O.Giss. inv. 551; O.Hamb.Copt. inv. V; O.Heerlen BL 278; O.Hyvernat 17; O.Kelsey inv. 25077, 25262; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 227–242; O.Petrie UC 32820; O.Petr.Mus. 559, 574; O.Torin. inv. 1450; O.Vind.Copt. 87–90; PSI inv. 68; P.Stras.Copt. 28, 65; SB XVIII 14037; SB Kopt. II 955–1008, 1022–1025; SB Kopt. III 1424 Tax demands (2): P.Bal. Appendix 130 A and B Protection passes (5): ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, O.BM EA 44848; P.Schutzbriefe 10, 23, 27, 28 Request for travel permit (1): P.CLT 3 Communal tax agreement (1): P.CLT 6 (not written by Aristophanes, who appears only as amanuensis)

Private Documents

Sales (10): вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ, P.KRU 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 25, 26, 27, 33 Settlements (7): вІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІҐвІ™вІџвІҐ вІ‰вІ§вІџ вІ›вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІҐвІ“вІҐ, P.KRU 39, 40, 41, 43(?); вІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІҐвІ™вІџвІҐ вІ›П©вІ“вІҐвІџвІ§вІ©вІЎвІџвІ›, P.KRU 47; вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІ§вІ“вІ•вІЏ, P.KRU 48; вІЃвІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІ™вІ›вІ‰вІ“вІЃ, P.KRU 52 Donation (3): вІ‡вІ±вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐвІ§вІ“вІ•вІ±вІ›, P.KRU 87, 95+101, 103 Agreement (1): вІЃвІҐвІ«вІЃвІ—вІ‰вІҐвІ§вІЏвІЈвІ“вІџвІ›, P.KRU 58 вЂDocument’ (1): вІ‰вІ…вІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ›, P.KRU 53 Receipt (1): O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 Property Parcels (2): O.Crum 147; O.CrumST 430 Lists (2): O.CrumST 444 (see chapter 4.4 for its potential connection with the taxation process); O.Medin.HabuCopt. 24 Unknown (1): P.Lond.Copt. I 444/1 (only the introduction survives)

2.4. Establishing Dates In his study of the dating of Theban documents, Walter Till suggested a date range of ca. 700–770 for Aristophanes.124 Three documents contain absolute Page 40 →dates, ranging from 724 to 756, providing a terminus post quem and a terminus ante quem for his professional activities. Ascertaining his life span beyond these points is a more difficult matter, yet the end date should be brought down to the late 750s, as will be argued in the following section. Several other dates that Till provided in his study also require reconsideration. In some instances, this is because of Till’s use of Thoth 1 (29/30 August) as the start of the year, whereas it has since been demonstrated that the year started on Pachons 6 (1 May).125 Therefore, texts dated between Pachons 6 and Thoth 1 need to be backdated by one year. The following discussion combines what dates are written—whether absolute dates based on fixed events or those connected to the fifteen-year indiction cycle—with the prosopography, context, and paleography of the texts. It is not always possible to talk about each element in isolation, as points frequently bear on one another. This highlights the problems involved in dating texts not only in Aristophanes’ dossier but from Thebes in general (and shows the enormity of Till’s achievement in creating order out of the vast amount of material from western Thebes). For the purposes of dating Aristophanes’ activity, the documents that he did not write but in which he acted as witness or amanuensis are also included. At the end of this section, table 2.2 shows Till’s original dates with new, revised ones. Absolute Dates Three of Aristophanes’ documents bear absolute dates in addition to the indiction year: P.KRU 14 and 15 include reference to the reign of Diocletian (also known as the Era of the Martyrs), and P.Bal. 130 Appendix A includes Hijra dates (AH), the Muslim system of reckoning years. The Diocletian date is reckoned from 284/5 CE, the Hijra from 622.

P.KRU 14.2–3, 29 April 756: О О±П‡бї¶(ОЅ) Оґ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) Оё бјЂПЂбЅё О”О№ОїОєО»О·(П„О№О±ОЅОїбї¦) бјђ(П„)бї¶(ОЅ) П„бЅґ(ОЅ) ПѓО®ОјОµПЃОїОЅ бјЎОјО-ПЃО±ОЅ П…ОїОІ “Pachons 4, indiction year 9, from Diocletian in this very year, 472.” Page 41 →P.KRU 15.2–3, 8 November 756:126 бј‰Оё(бЅєПЃ) О№ОІ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№ бјЂПЂбЅё О”О№ОїО№ОєО»О·ОґО№О±ОЅОїбї¦ (l. О”О№ОїО№ОєО»О·П„О№О±ОЅОїбї¦) бјђ(П„)бї¶(ОЅ) П„бЅґ(ОЅ) ПѓО®ОјОµПЃО±ОЅ бјЎОјО-ПЃО±ОЅ П…ОїОі “Hathor 12, indiction year 10, from Diocletian in this very year, 473.” P.Bal. 130 Appendix A.4 and 8, 3 January 724:127 (i) The payment of the poll tax was for О¶ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) бј•П„(Ої)П…(П‚) ПЃОµ “7th indiction year, year 105”; (ii) the payment of the expenses taxes was for О· бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) бј•П„(Ої)П…(П‚) ПЃП› “8th indiction year, year 106”; (iii) the demand was written on О¤бї¦(ОІОµ) О· бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О¶ “Tobe 8, indiction year 7.” The absolute dates, years 105 and 106 AH, equate to 723/4 and 724/5. Apart from the different start dates of the calendar years (the Muslim year is lunar rather than solar), this equates with the accompanying indiction years.128 The document was written on 3 January 724, during the year for which the poll tax installment was to be paid, while the expenses tax was for the following year.129 Nonabsolute Dates When the date survives for a text other than the three mentioned above, it does not include an absolute reference point. At best, there is reference to an indiction year. Without any additional information, documents can be dated to any cycle. The tax receipts in this dossier are dated to years 10–13 of the same indiction cycle (appendix 3 arranges the receipts by date), the passes for safe conduct also span this period,130 and P.CLT 6 is dated Mechir 15, indiction year 7,131 which corresponds to 10 February 724 or 739. As P.Bal. 130 Appendix A shows, Aristophanes was involved in the administration of taxes in the 720s, the decade to which the majority of known tax receipts are dated.132 P.CLT 6 should be dated Page 42 →to the earlier year, and the tax receipts correspond to 727–730. P.CLT 3, in which the proposed travel is dependent on the monks having paid their taxes of the twelfth indiction year (П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџвІҐвІ“вІџвІ› вІ›О№ОІ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚)), is part of this group of texts concerning taxation. This twelfth year is therefore year 728/9 and not the subsequent cycle (743/4). An early date is also more appropriate for the monastery of Apa Paul, as the other papyri connected with it date between 698 and 734.133 Four of Aristophanes’ papyrus documents and two in which he was witness preserve their complete indiction date. P.KRU 10, 8 December: О§ОїО№(бЅ°Оє) О№ОІ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) П› “Choak 12, indiction year 6.” P.KRU 11, 7 November: бј‰ОёбЅє(ПЃ) О№О± бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О¶ “Hathor 11, indiction year 7.” P.KRU 41, 29 April: О О±П‡(бЅјОЅ) Оґ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) ОІ “Pachons 4, indiction year 2.” P.KRU 45 (witness), 24 April: О¦О±ПЃОј(Оїбї¦ОёО№) ОєОё бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О· “Pharmoute 29, indiction year 8.” P.KRU 50 (witness), 22 August: ОњОµПѓОї(ПЃбЅґ) ОєОё бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оґ бј‘ОІПЊОј[О·П‚] “Mesore 29, indiction year 7.” P.Lond.Copt. I 444/1, 18 March: О¦О±ПЃОј(ОµОЅбЅј)Оё ОєОІ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) Оґ “Pharmenoth 22, indiction year 4.”

Three further documents mention the current indiction year within the main body of the text: P.KRU 25 (indiction year 6), 39 (indiction year 3), and 43 (indiction year 2). As P.KRU 40 is parallel to P.KRU 39, it can be dated to the same third indiction year. Similarly, P.KRU 46, in which Aristophanes was a witness, is parallel to P.KRU 45 and thus also from indiction year 8. Unlike taxation documents, which were written during a relatively short period in his career, there are no restraints—beyond his own death—on when he could have written them. To date these documents more precisely—although precision is not always possible in each instance—other factors have to be taken into account: namely, who appears in these texts and how the events recorded relate to other events. Page 43 → Prosopography and Context In the dating clause of Djeme legal documents, the current village officials are mentioned. In Aristophanes’ dossier, the official is almost always the dioiketes, except in P.KRU 10, for which see below. The dioiketes is also named in some settlement deeds as the official arbitrating the disputes. Three men occur with this title: Chael son of Psmo (P.KRU 52 and possibly P.CLT 3), Demetrios son of Leontios (P.KRU 52), and Comes son of Chael (P.KRU 11, 14, 15, 41, 43). Collouthos son of Arsenios, who occurs in the protocol of P.KRU 27, was probably also a dioiketes, even though his title is not written, and he is mentioned in connection with “the three castrums and Memnonion.” Comes is the latest of the three, as he occurs in P.KRU 14 and 15, dated absolutely to 756. The indiction dates connected with him in this dossier are 2 (P.KRU 41, 43), 7 (P.KRU 11), 9 (P.KRU 14), and 10 (P.KRU 15). His latest attestation is indiction year 12 in P.KRU 20. As P.KRU 14 and 15 are the last documents that Aristophanes wrote from this group (see “Paleography and Gerontology” below), this dates P.KRU 41 and 43 to 748/9 and P.KRU 11 to 753. Chael is found in P.KRU 106, which is absolutely dated to 735 (see below), and P.KRU 52 can therefore be dated to the 730s. He and Demetrios are named together in this text, as the officials before whom arbitration took place. They also occur together in P.KRU 7. It is presumably this Chael who is named, with Johannes (and both without patronymic), as the sender of P.CLT 3, dated 728.134 Chael’s tenure spanned at least 728 to 735. Initially, he shared the position with Johannes and then Demetrios, before becoming sole dioiketes, as mentioned in P.KRU 12, 13, 88, and 106 (dated to 733–735). That he is not mentioned with Collouthos in P.KRU 27 supports the proposal that Collouthos did not hold this title. Apart from instances such as P.KRU 52, in which the arbitrating officials are named and not simply referred to as “our lord” or “the great men of the village,” the dioiketes assumed no role in the events in question. Nevertheless, they serve as vital dating criteria. Other prosopographic information is also important. Some events between individuals mentioned in this dossier and other documents can take place only in a certain order. This is the case with P.KRU 10, a sale of land, and P.KRU 21, the sale of a house. The house in the second text is Page 44 →built on the land purchased in the first and is thus a later sale (but, on this, see “Problems” below). A useful tool is the addition of вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ (бЅЃ ОјО±ОєО¬ПЃО№ОїП‚; makarios), literally meaning “the blessed” and used euphemistically for “the deceased,” found before patronymics. The absence of this term before a patronymic does not necessarily indicate that the person is alive, but its use should always indicate that the person is dead.135 Its use with a person who is known to be alive in other documents does serve to relatively date these two occurrences. There are no instances in which Aristophanes’ Greek signature includes makarios before his patronymic, Johannes, but he wrote it several times in Coptic writings of his name. This is mostly in witness statements, when he was acting either as witness or as amanuensis, but also in P.KRU 11.4, in which he is the first party: [+ вІЃвІ›вІџвІ• вІЃвІЈвІ“]вІҐвІ§вІџвІ«вІЃвІ›вІЏ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ“вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ “[+ I, Ari]stophanes the son of the late Johannes.” The designation is omitted in subsequent writings of his name in lines 10 and 59. He also included the designation in P.KRU 17.52, 45.66, and 50.74. If he was careful in the use of this term, these documents, together with P.KRU 11, should be the latest or among the latest in the dossier. The case is not this simple. P.KRU 45 and 46 are parallel versions of the same

settlement, drawn up for each party, but he did not include the term in his witness statement in P.KRU 46.44. Further, in P.KRU 14, dated to 756 (three years later than P.KRU 11), he omitted makarios when acting as amanuensis for Comes, Athanasios, and Apa Victor, as is also the case in P.KRU 87, which is probably later than P.KRU 14 (see below). Therefore, his use or nonuse of makarios has to be treated with caution and cannot be regarded as a clear criterion for relative dates. One brief example illustrates several of the points raised here, all of which will be dealt with in greater detail later. Daniel son of Pachom is the addressee of the tax demand P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, which, as stated above, is dated absolutely to 3 January 724. Daniel is also attested in P.KRU 52, dated to the early 730s by its reference to Chael and Demetrios as dioiketes. Daniel is a member of the second party of this document, together with Tanope, daughter of Abraham and wife of Solomon, who is attested as the first party in P.KRU 8 (she is identifiable here only through reference to her husband). The Arab official Sulayman appears in P.KRU 52 and 8 as the amir who arbitrated each case. He is also found in P.KRU 7.14, in which Chael and Demetrios again appear as dioiketes. Page 45 →The appearance of these three officials and the same personnel, Tanope and Daniel, strongly indicate that these texts all date to the same period, the early 730s. A Christodoros son of Daniel is the second party in P.KRU 53 and may be this Daniel’s son. Though that text contains no dating criteria to indicate when it was written, it was most likely written before 748.136 When examining the dates of Aristophanes’ dossier, it is necessary, as the example of Daniel stresses, to look not only at the contents of Aristophanes’ texts but at connections across all available material from western Thebes. Paleography and Gerontology Aristophanes’ own writing is very consistent across his body of work. No documents point to an early phase in his career: P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, which has the earliest date, already shows Aristophanes as an accomplished, expert writer. However, while the early texts do not set themselves apart paleographically, his later documents do. P.KRU 14 and 15, from 756, show the effects of advanced age.137 His deteriorating handwriting is shown in its increased unevenness and erratic movements.138 P.KRU 15, from November 756, particularlyPage 46 → demonstrates these features. Figure 2.4 provides a comparison of a section from P.KRU 15 and one from P.KRU 8, which is certainly dated to the early 730s. These are not parallel passages but have been selected to show the degree of variation in his writing. The overall aspect of P.KRU 15 is clumsy. Aristophanes here found it difficult to maintain a straight line, and even individual letter formations are awkward. In contrast, P.KRU 8, a particularly fine handwriting sample from Aristophanes, is characterized by evenness—in letter formation, ink flow, and the straightness of its lines. How Aristophanes formed letters and ligatures did not change, but how well he was able to execute them did. The deterioration in his hand is evident in his documents from later years. Old age or an illness, possibly connected with his age, would also account for other features in P.KRU 15, such as the need to have the text proofread and corrected by a second scribe (see chapter 3.2). Texts exhibiting the same features as these can be attributed a later date as well. Some of the paleographic changes exhibited in P.KRU 14 and 15 are already evident in P.KRU 11, which dates to 753 (fig. 2.5). These include uneven lines, inconsistency in the formation and size of letters, and corrections to the text. Additionally, this text shows a greater variability in ink pressure, with areas in which the ink is thicker and sometimes produced ink pools. This could be attributed to the particular writing implement Aristophanes used on this occasion, but variation in grip strength may also account for this. In the absence of images of P.KRU 95, 101, and 103, all of which probably date to the mid-750s (P.KRU 87 is certainly late, as discussed below), this is the only other text definitely written after 750. Indeed, P.KRU 39 and 40, dated to 749/750, show his standard hand. The effects of old age or illness on his writing must have occurred after 750, most likely as a gradual process rather than a sudden change.139 Paleographic Information from Witnesses Not only the changes in Aristophanes’ hand are important for dating his dossier. Isaac son of Constantine

occurs as witness in P.KRU 14, 25, 47, 58, and 87, Page 48 →making him the most commonly attested witness in the texts that Aristophanes wrote. He also appears in P.KRU 50, in which Aristophanes acted as witness. Over these documents, as well as others that do not involve Aristophanes, there is a marked change in Isaac’s writing ability, from barely being able to write his name to being able to write longer statements for others as well as for himself. He also wrote the subscription for Georgios son of Marinnos in P.KRU 87 (see table 2.1). Tracking his development produces the following chronology:140 Page 47 → Fig. 2.4. P.KRU 15.32–39, 8 November 756 (top), and P.KRU 8.9–14, 730s (bottom). Or. 4871 and 4881. В© British Library Board. a Fig. 2.5. P.KRU 11.38–44, 7 November 753. Or. 6271/9. В© British Library Board. P.KRU 47 737/8 P.KRU 25 Indiction year 6 737/8 P.KRU 50 Mesore 29, indiction year 7 22 August 739 P.KRU 48 ca. 740 P.KRU 14 Hathor 14, indiction year 10 8 November 756 P.KRU 87 ca. 756141 This pushes Till’s dates for P.KRU 25, 47, and 50 forward by one indiction cycle, affecting the dates for the family of Abigaia142 and extending the dates for Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh as pagarch in P.KRU 50 beyond the mid720s.143 Consequently, P.KRU 45 and 46 can both be dated later, as Till’s primary criterion for dating both to 725 was Sahl’s appearance in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, with its absolute date of 724. Dating Sahl this late does not conflict with evidence for other pagarchs in the 730s. Sahl was pagarch of Esna (Latopolis) and Luxor (Diospolis), although he is never mentioned in connection with Ermont.144 Only КїAlqama b. ГЉrГЄd (вІЃвІЈвІ…вІЃвІ™вІЃ вІ©вІ“вІџвІҐ вІ‰вІЈвІ‡ or вІЏвІЈвІЏвІ‡, both spellings appear) in P.KRU 12.2 and 13.2 and Muhammad (вІ™вІЃвІ™вІ‰вІ§) in P.KRU 106.5, each of whom date to the 730s, are referred to as pagarchs of Ermont. Other Arab officials also appear during this period, including Sulayman (вІҐвІџвІ©вІ—вІ‰вІ“вІ™вІЃвІ›) in Aristophanes’ P.KRU 8.4 and 52.5 and in P.KRU 7.8, but they are simply referred to as amir, which signifies an official but not necessarily the pagarch. Page 49 →The contemporary eighth-century evidence for Arab officials indicates that they frequently moved between posts. At least, this is the evidence for central Egypt. КїAbd AllДЃh b. Surayh occurs as a public official (бјђПЂО№ОєОµОЇОјОµОЅОїП‚) in P.Lond. IV 1518 (709) and P.Lond. IV 1542 (710), as the person responsible for returning fugitives to Aphrodito. He is located in the nome of Psoi in the first and in the nome of Kois in the second. Some of the Arab officials that appear in Theban texts may similarly have moved between posts on a regular basis. Whether this would also be the case with the pagarch is not clear, but it is possible that Sahl and the other named officials served as pagarchs of neighboring nomes at different times.145 The other major significance of these dates, as based on Isaac’s paleography, is that it makes P.KRU 87 over twenty years later than the date proposed by Till, which, in turn, affects the history of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon, as P.KRU 87 involves its superior Cyriacus son of Demetrios.146 Every paleographic indicator of P.KRU 87, Isaac’s and Aristophanes’ (see chapter 3.3), places it around 756, if not later. This creates the situation wherein Cyriacus served two tenures as superior—a brief period in 733 (based on the dating of P.KRU 13 to 733) and then after 748 until at least 756—with his two tenures interrupted by that of Petros II, who served as superior from 734 to 747/8.147 Few other witnesses occur with great enough frequency for their paleographic competence (or lack thereof) to be used as a dating criterion. The witnesses Marcus son of Papnoute and Georgios son of Daniel appear in related texts that help relatively date documents for which there is otherwise little dating criteria. Marcus acted as

amanuensis for the first party in P.KRU 48.61–66 (table 2.1) and as witness and amanuensis for the first parties in P.KRU 17.47–49 and 27.63–65 (fig. 2.6). Georgios acted as witness in two of these documents, P.KRU 17.50 and 27.66 (fig. 2.7). In the two documents in which Marcus acted as amanuensis and witness, his hand is similar and shows a marked improvement from his writing in P.KRU Page 50 →48, where he wrote a longer statement. His hand in P.KRU 48 is more cramped, with uneven lines; in the other, it is more consistent in its general appearance and is evenly spaced. Letter formations remain constant, which is most apparent in his writing of ПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ in each document. A few orthographic features also group P.KRU 17 and 27 together and separate them from P.KRU 48. He wrote his patronymic as вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ‘ and Greek ПѓП„ОїО№П‡Оµбї– as вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-вІЏin P.KRU 48 but wrote them as вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰ and вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-вІ‰in both other texts. The orthographic differences do not function as chronological indicators, but his paleography marks P.KRU 48 as the earlier text. There is certainly only one Marcus son of Papnoute. He listed his title in P.KRU 48.64–65 as “the most humble deacon of the parish church of Djeme” (вІЎвІ‰вІ—вІЃвІ-(вІ“вІҐвІ§вІЃвІ§вІџ)вІҐ вІ›вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ•(вІџвІ›вІџвІҐ) вІ›вІ§вІ•вІЃвІ‘вІџвІ—вІ“вІ•вІЏ вІ‰вІ•вІ—вІ‰вІҐвІ“вІЃ вІ›П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰) and in P.KRU 17.48 as simply “the deacon” (вІЎвІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ•вІџвІ›вІџ[вІҐ]). Perhaps Marcus had not long been appointed deacon at the time of P.KRU 48, which may account for his need (or desire) to write the longer form of his title, although this is only a suggestion. Fig. 2.6. Signatures of Marcus son of Papnoute, P.KRU 48.61–66 (top), 17.47–49 (middle), and P.KRU 27.63–65 (bottom). Or. 6721/1, 4877, and 4883. В© British Library Board. Marcus’ witness statements place P.KRU 48 in relative order with the other two documents but do not help order P.KRU 17 and 27. The witness statements Page 51 →of Georgios son of Daniel contribute to their chronology. His short statements provide little linguistic material for analysis, but differences do exist. Orthographically, Georgios wrote his name as вІ…вІ‰вІ±вІЈвІ…вІ‰ in P.KRU 17 and as вІ…вІ‰вІ±вІЈвІ…вІ“вІџвІҐ in P.KRU 27. In the latter, he omitted вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ “the son” and transposed two letters in вІ™вІ™вІ›вІ§вІЈвІ‰ “witness,” writing вІ™вІ›вІ™вІ§вІЈвІ‰ instead. In each case, his hand is quite similar, but P.KRU 27 shows less control in letter formation and maintaining evenness and is thus likely to be the earlier text. Both Marcus and Georgios changed the spelling of one of their names, from the Greek forms Papnouthios and Georgios to the Coptic forms Papnoute and George (i.e., they removed the вІ“вІџвІҐ ending). This may be because of the nature of the training that each received, or it may be the result of changes in personal preference.148 Fig. 2.7. Signatures of Georgios son of Daniel, P.KRU 17.50 (top) and 27.66 (bottom). Or. 4877 and 4883. В© British Library Board. P.KRU 48 records the affairs of Abessa and Takoum (whose family appears several times in this dossier; see section 2.5) and is dated ca. 740. P.KRU 17 and 27 can therefore be dated later than this. In P.KRU 17, Aristophanes’ father is noted as deceased (as previously discussed), and a date in the 740s is unproblematic in this respect, as Johannes is known to have died sometime before August 738 (P.KRU 50). In chapter 4.2, I suggest a relationship between P.KRU 2 and 17 on the basis of property owned by Shenoute son of Phoibammon, the first party in P.KRU 17. If correct, that relationship would push the date of P.KRU 17 later than that of P.KRU 2, which can be dated to 7 October 749. As Aristophanes’ writing does not show marked signs of deterioration until the 750s, a date of ca. 750 is possible for P.KRU 17, in which case P.KRU 27 could be dated to the late 740s. However, a general date to the 740s is preferable, as there is nothing that indicates something more specific. Till dated P.KRU 17 to “vor 725” on the basis of the appearance of Georgios son of Daniel in P.KRU 21, which he dated to 725 but which I date below (in the discussion of P.KRU 10) to 739. P.KRU 21 was not available for study at the time Page 52 →of this writing, making it impossible to place P.KRU 17 and 27 in relation to it, but a date around 739 would accord well with the date of P.KRU 48, which, as already noted, was written around

740. A Georgios son of Daniel also appears as taxpayer in the tax receipt O.Vind.Copt. 95, dated Thoth 24, indiction year 15 (22 September 716), but this is not necessarily the same individual, and Georgios did not write any component of the receipt in his own hand. Even if he is the same man, the time difference involved—over thirty years—is not so extreme as to make a date in the 740s impossible. Problems The above discussion demonstrates the difficulties involved in combining and correlating the different dating criteria found within these texts. Three documents are especially problematic and raise different papyrological issues. P.KRU 10

Till dated this deed of sale between the children of Psate and the sons of Germanos (Hemai, Shenoute, and Stephanos) to 8 December 722 based on its connection with P.KRU 21, wherein the events recorded must postdate P.KRU 10, as the house sold in P.KRU 21 is built on land purchased in P.KRU 10. Till dated P.KRU 21 to 12 June 725, which, in the first instance, should be backdated to 724. Apart from the relationship between these two texts, the main dating criteria that need to be taken into account are their prosopographical and papyrological situation.149 The village officials mentioned in P.KRU 10.3 are Athanasios son of David, for whom this is the sole attestation, and Mena son of Paham, who is well attested.150 Here they are referred to by the abbreviated title ОјОµО№О¶/, which, at Djeme, was normally the equivalent of the lashane. However, it seems that Aristophanes misapplied the term in this case and that dioiketes was intended here (as supported by the use of the epithet О»О±ОјПЂПЃПЊП„О±П„ОїП‚, which is only associated with the dioiketes).151 Neither 722 nor 737 (the following indiction cycle) provide contradictoryPage 53 → evidence for the dioiketes.152 There is no evidence as to who filled the role of dioiketes in 737. Chael son of Psmo was dioiketes as late as 735, based on the absolute date of P.KRU 106, but no other dioiketes is attested until 748/9 (Comes son of Chael). The use of this title is therefore no impediment to pushing the date of P.KRU 10 forward one cycle. In turn, this necessitates pushing P.KRU 21 to 739. There is again no impediment to this. The dioiketes named in this text, Petros son of Comes and Johannes son of Matthias, are attested in P.KRU 50, which I have already dated to 739, and P.KRU 51. All these texts were originally dated to 724 due to the presence of Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh in P.KRU 50, but I have already discussed this, and his appearance is not a restraint against dating all these texts to 739.153 The only other prosopographic blockade against a date of 737 and 739 for P.KRU 10 and 21 is the issue of Johannes son of Lazarus. Johannes, himself a prolific scribe, is a prime candidate for being Aristophanes’ father (see chapter 6.1). Attested first as a witness in P.CLT 1 (698), he was heavily involved in taxation administration and was the scribe of several of the Djeme legal documents, including P.KRU 21. If he was Aristophanes’ father, a problem arises between P.KRU 21 and 50. In the latter, Aristophanes acts as witness and referred to himself as вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ“вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ “the son of the late Johannes” (P.KRU 50.76). P.KRU 50 and 21 are dated to the seventh and eighth indication years, to 22 August 738 and 12 June 739 respectively. The only way to accord both indiction years and keep Johannes as Aristophanes’ father would be to bring the date of P.KRU 21 down to 724 and to maintain the date of P.KRU 50 as 739. In the greater context of these documents, it seems preferential to change the dates and reconsider the family relationship between Aristophanes and Johannes. Contextually, a later date for P.KRU 10 brings it in line with other documentsPage 54 → concerning the Germanos family. P.KRU 39 and 40 are dated to a third indiction year and must be later than P.KRU 10, as Hemai had passed away by this point. This results in a date of 749/50, agreeing with Till’s dates for these documents. The result for Till was a twenty-seven-year interval between the events recorded in P.KRU 10 and those in P.KRU 39 and 40, which is untenable, as the discussion in chapter 5.6 demonstrates. P.KRU 58 is part of

this archive and is a later text, although its dates are also problematic (see below). One final point about P.KRU 10 concerns the use of the papyrus on which it was written. It is on the papyrological verso of P.Berlin P. 3138 (see section 2.5); the text on the recto is P.KRU 76, the testament of Susanna, mother of Germanos. Till did not take this aspect of the manuscript into account and, despite his early date for P.KRU 10, dated P.KRU 76 (and its counterpart, P.KRU 66) “vor 749,”154 that is, earlier than P.KRU 39 and 40, for Hemai was alive at the time of the testament’s writing but, as already noted, deceased when his father’s house was divided. P.KRU 66 and 76 should be dated “vor 737,” as the latter must predate P.KRU 10, which is the secondary use of the papyrus. P.KRU 58

Aristophanes’ handwriting in this text suggests that it predates 750, after which point his writing began to deteriorate. While not as fine as in P.KRU 8 (fig. 2.4), his hand here lacks the problems found in P.KRU 11 (fig. 2.5), 14, and 15 (fig. 2.4). However, the presence of Phoibammon son of the late Athanasios complicates this. Till dated P.KRU 58 broadly to “nach 765” because of Phoibammon’s presence: Phoibammon acted as witness in P.KRU 58.30, but in P.KRU 71.65–67, he served as amanuensis and witness for his father, Athanasios, who was very much alive, so P.KRU 71 must be earlier than P.KRU 58.155 The designation “deceased” once again causes difficulties for what would otherwise be an unproblematic situation. It would be convenient to argue for two men called Phoibammon (both Phoibammon and Athanasios are common names),156 but his paleography is the same in both instances (fig 2.8). Especially striking in each case is his writing of his own name in an abbreviated form, вІ«вІџвІ“вІѓ, with a minusculePage 55 → form of beta from which a long horizontal abbreviation stroke was written (circled in each instance). Fig. 2.8. Signature of Phoibammon son of Athanasios, P.KRU 58.30 (top) and 71.65–67 (bottom). Or. 1061 and 4659. В© British Library Board. Till dated P.KRU 71 to 765 based on the appearance of Samuel son of Enoch and Ezekiel son of Matthias as dioiketes, in combination with the indiction year: it was written on О (О±)П‡(бї¶ОЅ) О№Оі бј°ОЅОґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) Оі “Pachons 13, indiction year 3,” that is, 8 May.157 While Till’s date needs to be brought down to 764, lowering it further creates conflict between the tenure of Samuel and Ezekiel. Comes son of Chael was dioiketes from at least the time of P.KRU 41, dated 29 April 749, nine days before P.KRU 71 was written. In 734, Chael son of Psmo was dioiketes. An even earlier date, 719, poses no problems in respect to the officials involved (no dioiketes are attested for this year), but it is impossible to date the text so early, as P.KRU 58 concerns later events in the history of the Germanos family. Shmentsney son of Shenoute, priest and hegemon of the Holy Church of Djeme, wrote his witness statement in P.KRU 58.27–29. He was the scribe responsible for P.KRU 12, 13, and 106 and acted as witness in P.KRU 56, all of which date to the mid-730s.158 He is not attested in any other document, but he does occur several times in connection with his son, Shenoute son of Shmentsney.159 Shenoute himself was the scribe responsible for P.KRU 2 (7 December 749), 4 (19 November 749), and 54 (24 September 748 or 763) and acted as witness to P.KRU 24 (29 June 762) and 5 (24 March 748).160 In every instance, he referred to himself as “son of the late Shmentsney” (e.g., P.KRU 2.60: Page 56 →вІҐвІ‰вІ›вІџвІ©вІ‘(вІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ§вІџвІ© вІ©вІ“вІџ(вІ©) вІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІ©) вІ-вІ™вІ›вІ§вІҐвІ›вІЏвІ©).161 Shmentsney was certainly dead by the late 740s, and P.KRU 58 must therefore predate that period (the family relationship between Shmentsney and Shenoute seems certain). To accommodate Shmentsney’s presence, P.KRU 58 must have been written before March 748, the earliest date for Shenoute. As P.KRU 71 is earlier than this, it must also predate this period. The only available date for P.KRU 71, then, is 734, so P.KRU 58 can date to 734–748. The only remaining problem lies in the use of the term dioiketes. It is possible that the scribe, Swai son of Philotheos, incorrectly applied the term and that Samuel and Ezekiel were joint lashanes at this time, a proposition for which there are no real objections.162 Indeed, that

two men share the title in question supports them as lashane rather than dioiketes, for which dual holders are rare.

P.KRU 87

Aristophanes did not write the main text of P.KRU 87, as chapter 3.3 makes clear. He acted as amanuensis for certain witnesses and wrote his scribal notation, but these passages, particularly where he acted as amanuensis, show the effects of old age, matching the criteria discussed above. The six lines that Isaac son of Constantine wrote exhibit the most developed stage in his writing skill level, dating the document to around the time of P.KRU 14, that is, 756. On the grounds that Aristophanes was not able to write extended passages, I date it after this time and also after P.KRU 15 (November 756). This results in a date of 757 or slightly later, making it the last text in Aristophanes’ dossier. The issues concerning Cyriacus son of Demetrios, who appears as the superior of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon in this donation, are discussed above and do not prevent a late date for the document, although they do produce an unusual situation regarding the succession of the superiors. The only possible counterargument is that Aristophanes’ inability to write the entire document arose not from general advanced age but from a specific illness from which he improved enough that he was able to write P.KRU 14 and 15. Even so, the earliest the text can be dated is the early 750s. Page 57 → Proposed Chronology of the Dossier Taking into consideration the issues raised above, including the inherent problems and attempts to resolve contradictions between texts, my proposed chronology for this dossier is displayed in table 2.2. It includes my revised dates, the most important dating criteria for them, and Till’s original dates.

2.5. Between Dossier and Archives The documents written by Aristophanes form his dossier, not an archive. The latter is a collection of manuscripts made in antiquity by a person or institution, while a dossier comprises a group of texts brought together today because they contain information on a particular person, family, or subject.163 Aristophanes wrote all the documents in question, but, with few exceptions, they do not concern his affairs and were not actively collected and stored by him. This statement is not based on the archaeological provenance of these documents. As is the case with many papyrological finds, they were not discovered as a result of legitimate excavations. Rather, their history has to be reconstructed through museum archaeology and intratextual evidence.164 Reconstructing Aristophanes’ dossier is a far simpler matter than reconstructing the archives to which the individual documents belonged. To understand the history of his dossier—how it was stored in antiquity and how the individual items relate to one another—it is necessary to examine their modern history. The archival records for papyri and ostraca are often very different, Page 59 →with more information generally being known about the former. This is not always the case, and little is known about some papyri, with information sometimes being dependent on the institution in question. Appendix 1 records acquisition dates and persons responsible for acquisition of the texts in this dossier. Groups of documents that were acquired at the same time become clear from this information. Page 58 →Table 2.2. The dates of Aristophanes’ dossier Date Text Till’s date Dating criteria P.Bal. 130 (i) Tobe 8, indiction year 7; (ii) Hijra 105 and 106; (iii) 03.01.724 18.12.723–26.1.724 App. A and B Taxation; (iv) Daniel son of Pachom 10.2.724 P.CLT 6 10.2.724 or 739 (i) Mechir 15, indiction year 7; (ii) Taxation P.Schutzbriefe 03.10.725 — (i) Paope 6, indiction year 10; (ii) Taxation 27

Tax receipts 727–730 (see appendix — 3)

(i) Indiction years 11–13; (ii) Taxation

728/9

(i) Indiction year 12; (ii) Taxation; (iii) Monastery of Apa Paul; (iv) Chael son of Psemo (dioiketes)

P.CLT 3

728/9 or 743/4

P.Schutzbriefe — 28 P.Schutzbriefe 05.06.730 — 10 12.06.729

11.07.730

P.Schutzbriefe — 23

730s

P.KRU 8, 52 Both 73*

730s?

P.KRU 33 2/3 VIII P.Lond.Copt. 18.03.736 — I 444/1 736–748 P.KRU 58

02.08 after 765

08.12.737 P.KRU 10

08.12.722

737/738

P.KRU 25, 47 722/3

22.08.738 24.04.740 ca. 740 early 740s

P.KRU 50 P.KRU 45, 46 P.KRU 26, 48 P.KRU 17

22.08.724 24.04.725 M VIII; 2/3 VIII “vor 725”

740s

P.KRU 53

2/3 VIII

748/9

P.KRU 43

748/9

29.04.749 P.KRU 41

29.04.749

749/50

P.KRU 39, 40; O.Crum 147

750s

P.KRU 747/8; 2/3 VIII 95+101, 103?

749/50

07.11.753 P.KRU 11

07.11.753

29.04.756 P.KRU 14

29.04.756

08.11.756 P.KRU 15

—

756–758 P.KRU 87

—

(i) [Epiph 18?], indiction year 12; (ii) Taxation (i) Paone 11, indiction year 13; (ii) Taxation (i) Epiph 17, indiction year 13; (ii) Taxation (i) Chael son of Psemo (dioiketes); (ii) Sulayman (amir); (iii) Daniel son of Pachom (i) Paleography (i) Pharmenoth 22, indiction year 4; (ii) Paleography (i) Paleography; (ii) Shmentsney son of Shenoute; (iii) Phoibammon son of Athanasios (i) Choiak 12, indiction year 6; (ii) Predates P.KRU 39 and 40; (iii) Postdates P.KRU 76 on recto (i) Indiction year 6 (P.KRU 25); (ii) Predates P.KRU 45 and 46; (iii) Isaac son of Constantine (i) Mesore 29, indiction year 7; (ii) Isaac son of Constantine (i) Pharmoute 29, indiction year 8 (P.KRU 45) (i) Isaac son of Constantine; (ii) Marcus son of Papnoute (i) Marcus son of Papnoute; (ii) Georgios son of Daniel (i) Christodoros son of Daniel (family of Daniel son of Pachom) (i) Indiction year 2; (ii) Comes son of Chael (dioiketes) (i) Pachons 4, indiction year 2; (ii) Comes son of Chael (dioiketes) (i) Indiction year 3; (ii) Comes son of Chael (dioiketes) (i) Cyriacus son of Demetrios (superior of monastery of Apa Phoibammon) (i) Hathor 11, indiction year 7; (ii) Comes son of Chael (dioiketes); (iii) Paleography; (iv) Gerontology (i) Pachons 4, indiction year 9; (ii) Diocletian year 472; (iii) Comes son of Chael (dioiketes); (iv) Isaac son of Constantine; (v) Paleography; (vi) Gerontology (i) Hathor 12, indiction year 10; (ii) Diocletian year 473; (iii) Comes son of Chael (dioiketes); (iv) Paleography; (v) Gerontology (i) Isaac son of Constantine; (ii) Paleography; (iii) Gerontology

Combined with the contents of the documents, this modern history can be used to reconstruct how they were

stored in antiquity. How papyri and ostraca were stored differs.165 The transient nature of ostraca makes them more readily discarded than their papyrus cousins. This transience and the treatment of ostraca by early excavators are reflected in the comparative paucity of their archival information.166 Only archives among the papyri are considered in the following discussion; potential archives of tax receipts are discussed in chapter 4.4. In P.KRU 10.21–22, there is passing reference to the ability to use earlier documents to safeguard current interests: “the authority of the castrum discovered that it belonged to PisenthiosВ .В .В . according to the authority of the original deed, which he made clear to them.” During the long process of dispute concerning the property in question, half of the property was found to be in the possession of a third party, Pisenthios son of Paulos. Through reference to the original deed of sale, by which he acquired the land, Pisenthios emphasized his legal right of ownership. That this contract could be brought forward to assert his ownership is not explicitly stated here, but the possibility to do so is implicit. An original deed is also referred to in P.KRU 11.25–27. Aristophanes’ land came to him “from Taneth and Mariam, the daughters of the late Papnoute (son) of Pamwei, through a legal sale, through a deed of sale.” This ability to produce a document at a later date is alluded to in the typical final clause of legal texts: вІҐвІџвІЈП« вІҐП-вІ™П-вІџвІ™П©вІ™ вІ™вІЃ вІ›вІ“вІ™ вІ‰вІ©вІ›вІЃвІ™вІ«вІЃвІ›вІ“вІЌвІ‰ вІ™вІ™вІџвІҐ вІ›П©вІЏвІ§ПҐ “It is secure and valid everywhere that it might be produced.” This ability is asserted more clearly in an addendum to P.KRU 47.69–73: “Note: Concerning the deed that you drew up for me and my siblings, if I produce it against you, it will be invalid because you have reimbursed me for the entire half of that sale, namely six holokottinoi.” Here, the second party, Takoum, satisfactorily fulfilled her terms of the contract and was therefore safe from any future legal overtures Page 60 →concerning the matter. The ability to produce earlier deeds as and when required indicates that documents must have been stored in some manner. The texts also provide evidence concerning who kept the documents. As part of the history of the property sold in P.KRU 14.36–40, the previous transmission of the property is recorded: “This which came to me from my late father Theodoros. He himself purchased it from Trakote daughter of Cyriacus (son) of Pcher, through a legal sale, through a deed of sale, which I will give to you now, as a surety for you.” The original deed of sale is given to the second party as a surety for them. There is a physical transfer of the deed, after which it cannot be used against the new owners in the future, as is clear in P.KRU 47. This echoes another standard formula from the final clauses of the document, in which it is stated that the document was drawn up вІ‰вІ©вІ±вІЈП«, “as a surety,” for the second party. The actual physical manuscript became the legal security for the new owners.167 As for the location in which manuscripts would be stored, Aristophanes’ texts are silent. Three child donation documents—P.KRU 89.33–38, 96.64–72, and 100.50–54—explicitly state that they are to be placed within the вІѓвІ“вІѓвІ—вІ“вІџвІ‘вІЏвІ•вІЏ (ОІО№ОІО»О№ОїОёО®ОєО· “library”) of the monastery, from which they could be produced should the terms of the deed be transgressed. Precisely what ОІО№ОІО»О№ОїОёО®ОєО· denotes in this context is difficult to ascertain, especially as the term appears in only these three texts. Krause suggested “record-office” or “registry” as possible renderings.168 The monastery produced a large number of texts recording its economic and administrative activities, especially during the tenure of Abraham, the founder of the monastery. Book lists and inventories of other commodities also exist.169 Perhaps the monastery had two different repositories: a library in which literary and biblical works were stored and a separate chancery in which the superior’s secretaries worked and produced the nonliterary paperwork required for the operation of the institution and where these deeds could have been stored. As for the physical location in which they were kept, Charles Goodwin reports that Rev. Henry Stobart (who acquired the majority of the Page 61 →child donation documents, including P.KRU 87) spoke of a wooden chest.170 This chest might have been the receptacle in question, but the identification is far from certain, owing to the lack of either any further details concerning it or any other reference to it beyond this account.171 The monastery was a large institution, and the prevailing situation there was certainly different from that for private individuals. While the presence of libraries or archives among Djeme residences can only be hypothesized, the underlying principle was the same. The monastery, represented by its superior, was the second party in the

child donation texts and, as such, required the same legal protection as the purchasers in sales: the child became their legal property, and safeguards to protect this legality were put in place. For this reason, they stored their documents safely. The ОІО№ОІО»О№ОїОёО®ОєО· at the monastery of Apa Phoibammon provides clear evidence for the existence of monastic archives. Five documents acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1924, of which P.CLT 3 was one, concern the affairs of the monastery of Apa Paul. P.CLT 5, acquired at the same time, entered the British Museum in 1924, before being handed back to the Metropolitan’s Department of Egyptian Art in the winter of the same year.172 The internal connections between P.CLT 1–5 and the close proximity of their acquisition suggests that they were part of the same find, from the same original archive. The Apa Paul texts do not refer to a ОІО№ОІО»О№ОїОёО®ОєО· of the monastery, but there is reference to the monastery physically receiving the relevant documents: вІЃвІ“вІ‰вІ“ вІЃвІ“вІЎвІЃвІЈвІЃвІ•вІЃвІ—вІ‰вІ“ вІ›М…вІ§вІ‰вІ§вІ›вІ‘вІ‰вІџвІ«вІ“вІ—(вІ‰вІҐвІ§вІЃвІ§вІџвІҐ) вІ§вІЃвІЈвІ‰вІ§вІ›М…П«вІ“ вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ‰вІ…вІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› Page 62 →вІ›вІЃвІ™вІЃвІЈвІ“вІ™вІ›вІ‰вІ“вІЃ вІ‰вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІ›М…вІ±вІЈП« “I came and requested that your God-lovingness take this document of release, for your surety” (P.CLT 1.52–54). That the Apa Paul texts were found so much later than the Djeme and Apa Phoibammon papyri—almost twenty years after the last major acquisition by the British Museum in 1906—lends further support to the existence of a separate archive at the Apa Paul monastery. P.CLT 3 is different, however, from the rest of the documents that constitute this archive. In P.CLT 3, the monastery is not the second party, for there is no second party, as the document is a letter written from the office of the village officials. In its production, the text has no physical connection with the monastery. This letter that was entered into the monastery’s archive for safekeeping must be a copy of an original sent to the amir. Private archives may belong either to a single person or to an entire family. An archive belonging to a family may concern all its members, collected as one group, or a group of documents that was compiled by one member and that was subsequently inherited and maintained by successive generations.173 A number of such archives can be identified among Aristophanes’ dossier. The individuals and families involved are discussed in detail in chapter 5, while the following sections look only at the composition of their archives (including texts outside of Aristophanes’ dossier). Aaron Son of Shenoute Nine sale documents record the purchasing activities of Aaron son of Shenoute: P.KRU 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15, the last two of which Aristophanes wrote. To these can be added P.KRU 3, which documents the previous sale of the property sold in P.KRU 2.174 Precedent for the transmission of older deeds to the new owner during the sale process is provided by P.KRU 14, as discussed above. Aaron retained not only the documents in which he was the second party but also the records of the previous sales of these properties, in order to prove the legitimacy of his ownership. P.KRU 72 preserves the remnants of Aaron’s will, resulting in an archive of eleven documents. Page 63 →With the exception of P.KRU 12 and 13, acquired in 1893 and 1901 respectively, the documents were acquired by E. A. W. Budge in 1895. In 1901, the British Museum acquired fifteen documents from the collection of William Joseph Myers, of which P.KRU 13 is the only one from Djeme. Myers, an army officer, was stationed in Cairo between 1882 and 1887, but the details surrounding his procurement of this specific text are unknown.175 Except for these two texts, which may refer to a different Aaron son of Shenoute (see chapter 5.3), the remaining nine documents fulfill the necessary criteria for classifying them as an archive: they belong to the same person and were acquired at the same time. The Family of Abigaia and Zacharias The 1906 British Museum group acquired by Budge comprises documents concerning the affairs of one family, the descendants of Abigaia and Zacharias. Aristophanes wrote documents for all recorded generations of this

family, excluding Abigaia and Zacharias themselves: P.KRU 25, 26, 47, and 48. In addition, he served as witness to P.KRU 45, 46, and 50, leaving P.KRU 24, 28, 54, and 56 as the only texts in this archive with which he was not involved. Aristophanes was also one of this family’s neighbors, as seen in P.KRU 11, which is part of the dossier involving the family and which became part of the same archive via the purchaser in that sale, Comes son of Damianos, whom Arthur Schiller identified as the final keeper of the family archive.176 Comes was the recipient of P.KRU 54, which was written on the verso of P.KRU 26, in which he acted as the executor of the estate of Tsyros, daughter of Takoum (who, with her sister, was involved in P.KRU 25 and 47). As executor, he may have received all of Tsyros’ papers, including those of her mother. Schiller suggests that Comes may have married Tagape, the great-granddaughter of Abigaia and granddaughter of Abessa, of whom he was a neighbor following his purchase of Aristophanes’ property in P.KRU 11. Through this, he became the final owner of the paperwork from this branch of the family, including P.KRU 26, which he reused, and P.KRU 48. Both situations may have occurred, for they are not mutually exclusive: he executed Tsyros’ will and married Tagape, leading to the deposition of the entire family archive in his house. In this way, separate personal archives became a family archive, and the entire group should be referred to as the archive of Comes.177 Schiller linked this family to another at Djeme, the well-known family of Page 64 →Elizabeth and her niece Abigaia, assuming the Abigaia in that case to be the wife of Zacharias.178 Till and, subsequently, Wilfong posit that two different Abigaias are involved.179 The existence of two different families is borne out by the archival history of the documents. Those pertaining to the affairs of Elizabeth and her niece were acquired, as one group, in Egypt during the early 1860s, forty years before the acquisition of the Abigaia and Zacharias archive.180 Aristophanes had no connection with the earlier family. The Family of Germanos Three of the documents written by Aristophanes concern property once owned by Germanos son of Susanna: P.KRU 10, 39, and 40, in the collections of the Г„gyptisches Museum in Berlin, the British Library, and the MusГ©e du Louvre respectively. The first of these concerns a sale of land, around which a dispute had arisen following Germanos’ death. The latter two directly concern the division of his estate between two of his sons. One of the ostraca in Aristophanes’ dossier, O.Crum 147, records a third division of the same property. These texts are part of a larger archive that deals with the economic concerns of the children of Germanos, which revolve around his son Shenoute in particular and which ultimately came into the possession of Shenoute’s son, Pisenthios.181 P.KRU 58, concerning the repayment of a loan taken out by Isaac son of Abraham, is also part of this archive, being connected to it by Shenoute, who is named on the text on the verso (which Aristophanes did not write). The full archive includes, in addition, P.KRU 20, 21, 66, 70, 76, and 115. Daniel son of Pachom Several seemingly disparate documents in this dossier involve Daniel son of Pachom: P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, in which he is the named taxpayer; P.KRU 52, in which he is the second party together with Tanope daughter of Abraham; and P.KRU 53, a receipt involving his son. These papyri were acquired by the British Museum in 1893 and are part of a larger group that concern Daniel’s financialPage 65 → concerns, including P.KRU 61 (recording the sale of a donkey), 62 and 63 (loan agreements), 71 (Daniel’s testament), and 116 (an agreement concerning Daniel’s maintenance in his old age). The inventory numbers of all these documents fall within the range of Or. 4659–4668. Their close acquisition history and subject matter indicate that they were intentionally collected and stored by Daniel and, subsequently, by his son Christodoros, who may be identified as Christote in P.KRU 53. Over half of Aristophanes’ papyri belonged to identifiable archives: twelve were part of private archives, while four belonged to monastic archives. Where the private archives were located is not known. The issue of the existence of a Djeme archive has been the subject of considerable attention, the most thorough analysis being Godlewski’s, undertaken as part of his study of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon. Much of this attention is predicated on nineteenth-century accounts of the discovery of the relevant documents in a wooden container; in sum, between 1850 and 1855, a box was found containing documents concerning the monastery.182

The only documents that can be attributed to a wooden container with any certainty are those concerning the monastery. Yet Godlewski took his conclusion one step further, suggesting that private documents found at the same time were also stored in the same archive, although he noted that this could not be proven definitively.183 The significant aspect of this argument is the proposal that documents between private individuals could be deposited in the monastery. There are two reasons why this was not the case. The first acquisitions made following that of the Stobart group in the 1850s happened almost a decade later, and the largest acquisitions came during the 1890s and 1900s, significantly later and at a time after the Egypt Exploration Fund (now the Egypt Exploration Society) had started its clearing and excavation of Deir el-Bahri. Furthermore, it was in the best interests of the second party to keep their own documents and not archive them with a third party. Schiller, who varied over time in his opinion concerning the location of these archives, ultimately came to the conclusion that documents linked to monastic activity were placed in its archives, while those connected to private individuals were found in the houses at Djeme.184 Both the textual and archival Page 66 →histories support this conclusion. Private documents were found over a long period of time, and that some discoveries coincide with those of the monastic texts does not contradict Schiller’s view. Clandestine activity by fellahin, whether at the behest of certain individuals or not, did not have to be restricted to one location at one given time.185 HГ¶lscher’s dissatisfaction at not having discovered any papyri beyond the tiniest of scraps during his work in Medinet Habu should not be taken as evidence for there being none in the village.186 That he found ghosts of papyri is enough to indicate their presence at one time. The simple explanation for the paucity of his finds is that the village had been stripped bare of any more significant remains long before HГ¶lscher got there.187

Page 67 →

Chapter 3 Putting Pen on Papyrus Scribal Practices and Processes Analysis of the original manuscripts provides an immediate connection with Aristophanes, revealing how he actually wrote his documents and elucidating his scribal processes. These include the style in which he wrote, how he set out his documents, how and when he needed to correct his writing, and the organization of document production. Looking at a document in different ways provides a great deal of information, revealing how he worked and how this changed over time. He was also not the only person who wrote on his manuscripts. Witnesses and signatories of varying levels of competency signed their names at the bottom of legal documents and tax receipts. Considering who signed and how regularly they did so further contributes to the understanding of a scribe’s working environment. What follows focuses on how Aristophanes wrote and worked, as well as on how close attention to such detail affects the understanding gained from reading the modern text edition in isolation.188 Page 68 →

3.1. Aristophanes’ Writing Style Over the course of his writing career, the appearance of Aristophanes’ handwriting remained relatively stable, with the exception of documents written in his later years that show the distinct effects of old age.189 Variation that occurs earlier in his style may be the result of a number of factors. Speed was of the essence in the production of tax receipts, especially on days when he wrote a large number of these. Additionally, the life span of such documents was short. These factors, based on the context of the document type, result in the reduced legibility of the writing, with less care in letter formation and more ligatures. Other factors involve the physical realities of writing: the quality of the pen used and of the writing surface—whether limestone, pottery, or papyrus—as well as how well produced a papyrus sheet was and whether writing was on its recto or verso. The excerpts of Aristophanes’ documents included throughout this volume provide an indication of this variation. A particularly fine example of his style can be seen in P.KRU 8 (fig. 2.4), while P.KRU 15 (fig. 2.4) and his witness statement in P.KRU 87 (fig. 3.6) show him at his worst. Sometimes, it is possible to determine reasons for differences in his hand, as is the case with his last documents and his tax receipts; more often, these are not obvious. One clear difference in Aristophanes’ style is in his writing of Greek passages that contain no Coptic linguistic elements.190 This results in the presence of two distinct scripts in the relevant documents. The two scripts differ in their overall appearance and in individual letter formation. His Coptic script is larger and rounder, while his Greek one is more compact but with longer vertical strokes and sharp diagonal lines. They could be described, respectively, as bilinear and quadrilinear styles, that is, as if written between either two or four lines.191 Figure 3.1 shows the differences between the two, using extracts that are both taken from P.CLT 3 (his Coptic script is above, his Greek script below). Thick black lines added to the text in the figure clarify this point. In this text, Aristophanes’ Coptic hand is quite even, especially concerning Page 69 →his line of writing (this is not always the case, though, and his line sometimes undulates across the width of the papyrus or has a distinct incline). Even here, though, not all letters are of the same size, and there is no true baseline on which all letters are written: Aristophanes clearly did not use grid lines himself. With the exception of вІ•, which is the largest letter, the letters are written as if between two lines. His Greek hand is more clearly written as if between four lines, with a distinction between the height of the vertical strokes and the bodies of the letters. The bodies fit within the middle two lines, the descending strokes (Ој and ПЃ) go down to the fourth, and the ascending ones (Оє) go up to

the first.

Fig. 3.1. Extracts from P.CLT 3.3, Coptic bilinear hand (top), and P.CLT 3.14, Greek quadrilinear hand (bottom). MMA 24.2.6. В© Metropolitan Museum of Art. Over the entire spectrum of his texts, Aristophanes’ Coptic script shows more variation than his Greek, partly because of the vastly greater amount of available text. This variation results in a number of different forms for each letter, which are often dependent on how they are or are not ligatured to preceding and proceeding letters and on their position in the line of writing, especially if at the end of the line. Some letters consequently have longer vertical strokes, descending above or below the two imaginary lines. Despite the presence of longer strokes and larger letters in this script, bilinear remains a convenient term to describe it, especially in relation to Aristophanes’ clearly quadrilinear Greek script. In contrast to the number of letterform variations found in Aristophanes’ Coptic script, their Greek counterparts show a remarkable degree of uniformity: there is one form for each letter, with slight modifications due to ligaturing. Not only is there a single form, but the form for certain letters is markedly different between the two scripts. Of these letterforms, which conform to contemporary Greek minuscule practice, beta and kappa can be singled out as characteristic of this minuscule style.192 Such consistency, which is especially Page 70 →clear in the extended passage of Greek in P.CLT 3,193 indicates a level of care and attention to detail that Aristophanes did not need when writing Coptic. The importance of Aristophanes’ use of this separate Greek script is discussed further in chapter 6.2, together with the nature of the relevant passages and their connection with contemporary Greek practices. Important to stress here is that there is a clear and marked difference in his production of script for the two languages.

3.2. Correcting the Results of Old Age On occasion, it was necessary for Aristophanes to modify the text that he had written. Corrections appear as additions above the line, typically comprising at least one word, and as erasures. Not every document needed to be corrected, and some have only one or two emendations. The same, however, cannot be said of P.KRU 15, dated November 756. As already noted in chapter 2.4 in the discussion of the effects of old age on Aristophanes’ penmanship, this document shows a visible degradation in the quality of his writing. This deed of sale is also the only text that has corrections in the margins. Written in the left margin of line 16 is вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ “to write, ” and added in the right margin of line 38 is вІЎвІЃвІ“, the demonstrative pronoun “this,” (fig. 3.2). In the case of вІҐП©вІЃвІ“, the addition is necessary, the verb having been omitted, but the second addition is not necessary. Originally, Aristophanes wrote вІ§вІЃвІЈвІ‰вІ•вІЈвІЎП«вІџвІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІ™вІЎвІЏвІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІ™вІ™вІЃвІ© вІ‰ПҐвІ•вІЏ вІ‰П©вІЈвІЃвІ“ П©вІ“ вІЎП©вІ“вІЈ “and you become owner of that house, situated in the street” (lines 37–38). The inclusion of вІЎвІЃвІ“ before the circumstantial I Present (вІ‰ПҐвІ•вІЏ) is not needed. Its addition introduces a mistake and should have necessitated the changing of the circumstantial to a relative construction, вІЎвІЃвІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІ•вІЏ “this which is situated.” There are no other attestations among Aristophanes’ dossier of the use of вІЎвІЃвІ“ before a circumstantial, but there are several instances before a relative construction.194 Looking at the writing of these two words, a few points are striking. The ink is a different color to the text surrounding it; it is much lighter, indicating that Page 71 →these words were added later, possibly with a different pen, but certainly with either lighter ink or a less heavily loaded pen. The paleography is also different, as demonstrated in figures 3.3 and 3.4, which compare these forms with examples from elsewhere in P.KRU 15 and Aristophanes’ other documents. Both words are written in a different style, with different letter formations and with final finials that are written in the opposite direction to what is typical. вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ shows an especially different form. This strongly points to the presence of a second writer. Fig. 3.2. P.KRU 15.16, вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ (left), and P.KRU 15.38, вІЎвІЃвІ“ (right). Or. 4871. В© British Library Board. a

Fig. 3.3. The writing of вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ by Aristophanes: (a) P.KRU 15.16, (b) 15.30, (c) 14.14, (d) 27.10, (e) 39.9. Or. 4871, 4868, 4883, and Papyrus CIV. В© British Library Board. Fig. 3.4. The writing of вІЎвІЃвІ“ by Aristophanes: (a) P.KRU 15.38, (b) 15.32, (c) 14.36, (d) 27.28, (e) 39.32. Or. 4871, 4868, 4883, and Papyrus CIV. В© British Library Board. Of the other corrections in this document, it is not always possible to determine whether Aristophanes made them or if they were made by this second individual. In line 84, there is an addition above the line, without which the text makes little sense. The addition of вІ›вІ§вІ‰вІќвІџвІ©вІҐвІ“вІЃ here corrects the text from “and he pays the fine of thirty-six gold holokottinoi that governs in that time” to “and he pays the fine of thirty-six gold holokottinoi to the authority that governs in that time” (вІ›ПҐвІ§вІ“ вІ‰вІЎвІ—вІџвІ…вІџ[вІҐ вІ™вІЎ]вІЈвІџвІҐвІ§вІ“вІ™вІџвІ› вІ™вІ™вІЃвІЃвІѓвІ§вІЃвІЃвІҐвІ‰ вІ›П©вІџвІ—вІџвІ•(вІџвІ§вІ§вІ“вІ›вІџвІҐ) вІ›вІ›вІџвІ©вІѓ \вІ›вІ§вІ‰вІќвІџвІ©вІҐвІ“вІЃ/ вІ‰вІ§вІЎвІЈвІЃвІ§вІ§вІ‰вІҐвІ‘вІЃвІ“ П©вІ™ Page 72 →вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІџвІ©вІџвІ‰вІ“ПЈ вІ‰вІ§вІ™вІ™вІЃвІ©).195 As with the marginal corrections, the ink is lighter than the surrounding text, showing that it was added at a later time, although when cannot be determined. As well as being written outside the flow of writing, the letters are too small and faint for us to be able to determine if Aristophanes made this addition. A more innocuous correction occurs in line 47, where, with one stroke, вІ§вІ‰вІ—вІ‰вІЃ becomes the correct вІ§вІ‰вІ—вІ‰вІ“вІЃ “whole.” The stroke that forms the omitted вІ“ is designed to replicate the common ligatured writing вІ‰вІ“ but is clumsily added. The stroke starts to the left of вІ‰ and follows the arm of that letter down, continuing to form a letter with a short descender. This stroke does not descend as far as is typical for iota, but it cannot be dismissed as an accidental slip, as it occurs precisely where it was needed. Again, this stroke is fainter in color than the original text and can be added to the list of later corrections. In Aristophanes’ dossier, this is the only orthographic correction beyond two instances in P.KRU 87, which are discussed in section 3.3. The settlements of dispute written by Aristophanes, P.KRU 41 and 43, show a practice of leaving gaps in the text that could be filled at a later point, if it were necessary to check various details. In P.KRU 41, details concerning the neighboring properties to the south and west were not known when describing the property in question, and space was provided for their later inclusion. As the space provided in line 49 was the right size, Aristophanes must have known it was land of some sort, but not the specific category: вІЎвІ-ⲩⲣⲏⲙⲁ“the land” is supplied, in letters that are more thickly written and on a steep writing angle that is not shared by the following text (perhaps he had to check that it was not вІЎвІ•вІЃП© “land” or вІЎвІЃвІ›П© “courtyard”).196 Three lines later, in line 52, Aristophanes left a larger space, but it proved to be insufficient for the actual details, which necessitated completing the inserted text with one word, “father,” above the line: вІ‰вІ“вІ™вІ›вІ§ вІЎвІЏвІ“ вІ›вІ›вІҐвІ›вІЏвІ© вІ™вІЎвІЃ\вІ‰вІ“вІ±вІ§/ вІ›вІ§вІџПҐвІ§вІ‰ ⲛⲁⲓ̈“west, the house of the siblings of my \father/. These are \the/197 boundaries” (I have here underlined the added text). Both insertions are characterized not only by their alignment, which does not follow that of the Page 73 →surrounding text, but also by the nature of the pen strokes, which is thicker and darker in comparison with the surrounding text. Aristophanes left a small gap at the beginning of line 28 of the settlement document P.KRU 43, following the mention of a storage area. Its precise location in relation to the other property mentioned needed to be checked: вІ™вІ› вІ§вІЎвІЏПЈвІ‰ вІ›вІ§П«вІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ§вІЃвІ‘вІЏВ .В .В . “and half the storage area at the front[?]В .В .В .” This text is followed by reference to communal areas of the property. The added text, вІ‘вІЏ, is identifiable by the thickness of its letters and its line of writing, which does not follow the upward slant of this line. This short addition did not fill the space left for it. This practice occurs three times in P.KRU 15. In the first two instances, in lines 41 and 42, space was provided for extra details that were never subsequently supplied: вІЎвІЈвІЏвІҐ вІ•вІЃвІ‘вІЃвІЈвІ±вІ› вІ§ПЈвІ‰вІ‰вІЈвІ‰

вІ› vac. вІЎП©вІЏвІ§ вІ“М€вІ±вІҐвІЏвІ«вІЎвІ‰вІѓвІ± вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ™М…вІ›М…вІ§М… вІЃвІ›вІЃвІ›вІ“вІЃвІҐ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ vac. “south, Catherine daughter of vac.; north, Joseph (son of) Pebo; west, Ananias son vac.” The patronymics of the individuals in question, respectively Catherine and Ananias, were not known. In line 41, Aristophanes wrote the genitive, вІ›-, to which the name could be immediately appended, and left an approximate amount of space for its addition. In line 42, he did not add the genitive and simply left the rest of the line blank. Neither Catherine nor Ananias was an active member in the sale. They were only named as part of the descriptions of the property being sold. That their patronymics were never added shows that this information was not vital. Other details were vital and, even if they were initially omitted, had to be included. At the ends of lines 46 and 47, the Coptic and Greek recording of the sale price were added at a later time (fig. 3.5): вІ›вІ§вІЃвІ›вІҐвІ©вІ™вІ«вІ±вІ›вІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ вІ™вІ› вІ›вІ‰вІ›вІ‰вІЈвІЏвІ© вІЎвІ‰ ПҐвІ§вІџвІџвІ©198 вІ›П©вІџвІ—вІџвІ•(вІџвІ§вІ§вІ“вІ›вІџвІҐ) вІ›вІџвІѓвІЈвІ©вІЌвІџвІ› вІ™вІЎПЈвІ“ вІ™вІЎвІ•вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЈвІџвІ› вІ›П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„О±) Оґ П„О-ПѓПѓОµПЃО±О¶П…Оі(ПЊП‚) Оє(О¬ПѓП„ПЃОїП…) ОњОµОјОЅП‰(ОЅОЇОїП…) “which we agreed on together is four holokottinoi, pure of the measure of the castrum Djeme, i.e., 4, four, nomisma of the measure of the castrum Memnonion” (lines 46–48). The price was written in full in Coptic and then in Greek, first by the numeral and then in full, as was standard practice. Where the added text starts on both lines is marked by a change in ink color from dark to light, a slight change in writing direction, and some nonstandard letterforms. This is easier to identify on line 47. On line 46, the change appears to be after вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ, even though this means that formulaic elements were omitted as well as Page 74 →the price (вІ™вІ› вІ›вІ‰вІ›вІ‰вІЈвІЏвІ©вІЎвІ‰ is vital, as it connects the first part of the formula with the price). One other point in support of the writing of the Coptic price as a later addition is an omission of a formulaic component. The standard phrase should be вІ›П©вІџвІ—вІџвІ•(вІџвІ§вІ§вІ“вІ›вІџвІҐ) вІ›вІ›вІџвІ©вІѓ вІ›вІџвІѓвІЈвІ©вІЌвІџвІ› “pure gold holokottinos,”199 but “gold” is missing here. When the text was added, only the first part of the formula was inserted. Fig. 3.5. P.KRU 15.46–48. Or. 4871. В© British Library Board. The reasons for the omission of this detail can only be conjectured: either it was still to be settled by the parties, or Aristophanes was not given this information. If either of these conjectures is correct, it reveals important aspects of document production: either a deed of sale could be drawn up before all the particulars had been agreed on, or the parties did not have to be present when the scribe drew up the deed; if they had been present, Aristophanes need only have asked for the information, and they would have supplied it immediately. All the other pertinent details, such as names of the parties and the property involved (even if the minor points were unknown), were included at the time of writing. This is not a question of Aristophanes having drawn up a blank document with spaces in the appropriate places that could be filled by anybody at a later time. The question is whether this text was added by Aristophanes or somebody else, as with the two marginal corrections. The Greek repetition of the price does not conform to the care that Aristophanes exhibited in his other Greek passages, including in this document (as the Greek at the beginning of the line following, line 48, attests). Instead, it gives the impression of a scribe who attempted to alter their script by making it more ligatured but who failed to appreciate the forms that the letters should take. It can therefore be attributed to a different scribe. Page 75 →Finally, there are two instances where text has been erased. In line 55, the beginning of the clause on rights of ownership, one section has been deleted, with nothing written in its place. What remains conforms to standard phraseology: вІ‰вІ•вІ›вІЃвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰П©вІџвІ©вІ› вІ›вІ…вІЃвІ™вІЃП©вІ§вІ‰ вІЃвІ©вІ± вІ›вІ…вІЈвІЎП«вІџвІ‰вІ“вІҐ vac. вџ¦вІҐвџ§ вІ™вІЎвІЏвІ“М€вІ‰вІ§вІ™вІ™вІЃвІ© “you will enter into, control, and become owner vac. of that house” (lines 54–55).200 Sigma was not erased but should have been deleted with the rest of the previous section, only a few traces of which are still visible. In line 38 (the same line in which вІЎвІЃвІ“ was added in the right margin), the central section has been deleted and replaced with a Finalis construction:201 вІ‰ПҐвІ‰П©вІ‰ вІ‰вІ©вІ›вІЃ вІ›вІ›вІЃП©вІЈвІ› вІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰

вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІџвІ©вІџвІџвІ§вІѓ вІ‰вІџвІ©вІџвІ› вІ›вІ“вІ™ вІ§вІЃвІЈвІ‰вІ•вІЈвІЎП«вІџвІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІ™вІЎвІЏвІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІ™вІ™вІЃвІ© “he can truly be pitied before God, who is removed from everyone, and you will become owner of that house” (P.KRU 15.37–38). The writing here is different than that expected from Aristophanes; it is careless and chunky, without the easy flow characteristic of his other writing or the letter formations indicative of the other hand identified in this document. This could mean that yet another individual was involved in the correction of this document or that whoever wrote it (Aristophanes or the anonymous corrector) hesitated in its writing. Despite the appearance of the text, it is grammatically correct, including the assimilation of вІ›- to вІ™- before the following вІЎ of the original passage. P.KRU 15 contains more problems in one text than occur in the rest of his documents combined. In chapter 2.4, the inferior quality of Aristophanes’ writing in this and other texts was identified as an indication of his advanced age. Despite the number of errors isolated above, the content of the document and its formulae, grammar, and orthography are largely sound. Yet somebody else still read it through at a later stage. The initial omission of the price is one reason for a later reading, but the evidence—particularly the additions in lines 16 and 38—indicates that Aristophanes was not the scribe or, at least, not the only scribe to do so. The handwriting of one of his other documents suggests that the problems with this document are part of a more complex situation. Page 76 →

3.3. What’s in a Signature? Aristophanes signed P.KRU 87, which records the donation of the child Petros to the monastery of Apa Phoibammon, and he acted as amanuensis for two of its witnesses, Chael son of Psemo and David son of Pilloustrios. His handwriting in doing so is exactly what is expected from him at this stage of his life (fig. 3.6). The two groups of text written by Aristophanes—the witness statement for Chael and David (lines 55–58) and his notation (line 62)—are separated by the witness statements of two other individuals, Antony and Joseph (lines 59–61). Aristophanes’ writing here is sloppy at places and not without mistakes. In line 56, there is an omission and a subsequent superlinear addition of вІ™ in вІ™вІ™вІ›вІ§вІЈвІ‰, whether by him or somebody else is not clear (the same form of superlinear вІ™ is found in line 55 and is a form he wrote in other texts). The form of вІҐ in вІ“вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ (line 57) is written like a вІҐвІ§ ligature, as if he was writing вІ“вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ вІ§вІЃвІ“ (the feminine demonstrative article), not вІ“вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ вІЃвІ“вІҐП©вІЃвІ“. Aside from his paleography, he also omitted вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™- “the son of” before the name Pilloustrios, which he squeezed into the end of the line. The overall aspect of this passage is in marked contrast to the style used for the main body of this document, an example of which is shown in figure 3.7. The differences between the two extracts is striking. Whereas one is small and fast, with thick ink deposits and an upward slanting line of writing, the other is tall, rounded, even, well spaced, and straight. Not only does the writing of the main body of the document not look like the witness statement and signature at the end, but it does not look like Aristophanes’ writing in any of his documents (cf. the other examples of Aristophanes’ hand throughout this volume). The use of superlinear strokes in P.KRU 87 is markedly different to their use in all other texts in Aristophanes’ dossier, and this is the only text in which the stroke is employed with any form of consistency.202 Its application is predominantlyPage 77 → restricted to the final letters of a lexeme (e.g., вІҐвІ±вІ§М…вІ™М…, line 22) or over an entire lexeme (e.g., П©М…вІЃМ…вІ—М…, line 16). Its only other attested use is over the construct form of вІЈвІ±вІ™вІ‰, вІЈМ…вІ™М…-, in вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІ›вІЈМ…вІ™М…вІЈвІџвІ©вІ™вІџвІџвІ© (lines 29–30). In the rest of his dossier, the superlinear stroke occurs sporadically (not at all in P.KRU 26, 40, and 53 or in tax receipts) and in a wider variety of uses: (1) over final radicals (e.g., вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ‰вІѓМ…вІ§М… in P.KRU 8.8, вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ™М…вІ›М…вІ§М… in P.KRU 15.42, and вІЎвІ±вІ—М…П-М…in P.KRU 52.17 and 21); (2) over construct forms (вІ›вІ§вІЃвІҐвІЈМ…вІЃвІ›вІЃвІ› in P.KRU 39.24 and вІ›вІ§вІЃвІ“ПЈМ…вІЈМ…вІЎМ…вІ‡вІЏвІ—вІџвІ© in P.KRU 47.40); (3) over entire lexemes (e.g., вІ‰ПЈМ…вІџМ…П«М…вІЎМ…ПҐМ… in P.KRU 14.66); (4)

over the central part of a lexeme (e.g., вІ›ПЈМ…вІ™М…вІ™вІџ in P.KRU 14.77), but Aristophanes may have intended these instances to be over the entire word; (5) over Page 78 →the nomina sacra вІЎМ…вІ›М…вІЃМ… (вІЎвІ›вІ‰вІ©вІ™вІЃ) “spirit” in P.KRU 11.52, 14.78, 41.88, and 48.47; and (6) over вІ™М…вІ™М… and вІ™М…вІ›М… at the beginning of the word. The final two usages are particularly of note, as they do not occur in P.KRU 87.

Fig. 3.6. P.KRU 87.55–62. Papyrus LXXXVI. В© British Library Board. Fig. 3.7. P.KRU 87.9–12. Papyrus LXXXVI. В© British Library Board. This deed also shows some formulaic variations from Aristophanes’ other documents. However, these must be treated with caution, as the only other child donation documents that are attributed to him, P.KRU 95+101 and 103, are incomplete, and this variation may be the result of the document type. This is certainly the case with the reference to royal law at the beginning of the document (вІЎвІ›вІџвІ™вІџвІҐ вІ›вІѓвІЃвІҐвІ“вІ—вІ‰вІ•вІџвІ›, line 3) and the right for people to act as they choose regarding their own property, which is also found in P.KRU 85.27, 94.10, 98.19–20, and 99.23. The inclusion of the biblical curse that transgressors of the terms of the deed will suffer the fate of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:4 (to see the promised land but not be able to enter it) occurs in both P.KRU 87.34–35 and 95.29 and is also found in P.KRU 78.67, 79.66, 81.47, and 85.45. Other variation cannot be attributed to the document type. As donation documents record the transfer of property from the first party to the second, they include formulae used in sale and settlement deeds. P.KRU 95.13–15 contains the introduction of the clause on rights of ownership (stating the legal rights of the new owner),203 but this is omitted from P.KRU 87. Similarly, P.KRU 95.2–3 contains a short form of the protection clause, in which the second party is protected from legal overtures from other parties (the same version found in P.KRU 52.19–20),204 but this also is not included in P.KRU 87. This level of divergence from Aristophanes’ norm adds further weight to the issue of who wrote this deed of child donation. If, as the evidence suggests, Aristophanes did not write the main text of P.KRU 87, who did? Returning to the corrections made to P.KRU 15, the hand in which these are written is very like the hand used throughout P.KRU 87: the sharp tick at the bottom of вІ“, as found in вІҐП©вІЃвІ“, is standard in P.KRU 87, while the rounded tick at the bottom of вІ“ also occurs, especially with вІ©. In general, the letter formations—even though the available sample from P.KRU 15 is so small—are the same in both texts. The person who made those corrections wrote P.KRU 87. Page 79 →It is difficult to argue that this person was Aristophanes. Not only is the paleography so different, but during the period in which it was written (the mid-750s), Aristophanes was at the end of his known career. His handwriting in the witness statement (fig. 3.6) reflects his increasing age and what was expected of him at this stage in his life. For Aristophanes to radically change his style to write the main body of the text at this time seems an impossible proposition. It is highly unlikely that the involvement of the monastery was a motivation for modifying his style. P.KRU 87 was written not for the monastery but for the first party, Georgios son of Marinnos. Unfortunately, the current location of P.KRU 101 is unknown, and its other part, P.KRU 95, is not available for study. The latter is signed, and even though the original editor, Crum, did not identify the former as belonging to the same text as P.KRU 95, he attributed it to Aristophanes. Without being able to view the original of P.KRU 101, it is not possible to determine whether Crum made this attribution because the text looks like the majority of his documents or because it looks like P.KRU 87. Presumably, the first of these options is true: P.KRU 101 looks like a typical Aristophanes text, in which he did not modify his style. One document in his dossier, P.CLT 3, concerned monks, but Aristophanes did not write this letter for the monastery; it was instead penned from the local village officials to the local Arab amir. Although unsigned, this text is by Aristophanes, as can certainly be determined because he did not change his style to write it. Who, then, was the scribe responsible for P.KRU 87? Without a signature and with so many anonymous texts from the Theban region, it is hard to attribute this donation deed to somebody else. Even if all Theban texts

become available for autopic inspection, it may never be possible to certainly identify the man who wrote it. Two final questions remain: if Aristophanes could sign the document and write one of the witness statements, why did he not write the entire text; and how could he give his name to a document that he did not write? The second point calls into question the necessity for scribal notations. Quite a number of donation documents are complete but have no signature, so perhaps there was no real need for one (this is a juridical question that is beyond the scope of this study). Among the child donation documents held in the British Library’s collection, no scribal notation occurs on P.KRU 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, and 91,205 while P.KRU 83, 85, 88, 89, and 90 (in addition to P.KRU 87) have a notation. All Page 80 →of the anonymous texts are otherwise complete at the end—that is, they preserve their witness statements—with the exception of P.KRU 84, which ends with the final formulae of the document proper. Consultation of the original manuscripts indicates that in most cases the scribe never signed the document. A large space was left after the witness statements of P.KRU 81, which are written in a square block in a single hand that is different to the main hand of the manuscript, and spaces were also left at the end of P.KRU 82 and 86. These are not damaged papyri that have lost their notation; their ends are fully preserved, and there was ample space for a scribe to sign them. P.KRU 91, which is written on leather and has witness statements on the verso, also has ample space for a scribal notation. Unless the notation alone was cut off from the papyrus, the evidence suggests that none was ever written.206 Age or illness may explain why Aristophanes wrote only a small section of P.KRU 87. P.KRU 15 was the last document that he wrote in its entirety. His work exhibits marked degradation by that point, and, as demonstrated above, P.KRU 15 contains more errors than the rest of his body of work combined. Such was his condition that it was necessary—for the first time in his career—for somebody else to proofread his work. If his age, eyesight, or illness was such by the end of 756 that he felt unable to draw up an entire document in his own hand, everything that he was approached to write after this time may have been written by another scribe, under his guidance. Following this line of reasoning, P.KRU 87 was written after this time, when he was limited in his capacities, and it was written by the same person who corrected P.KRU 15. While this person is unidentifiable, he was surely a trusted colleague or perhaps a onetime apprentice, whom Aristophanes worked with closely and could entrust with such deputizing.

3.4. Many Writers at Hand P.KRU 15 and 87 are the only two documents in which a second scribe altered—or indeed wrote—the main body of the text. Apart from P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, P.KRU 8, and P.CLT 3, which are special cases for other reasons, it is Page 81 →standard to find writers other than Aristophanes in his documents.207 Writers of various skill levels witnessed legal documents, signed tax receipts, and acted as amanuenses for those individuals who could not sign for themselves. These signatures at the end of the document, whatever its type, were necessary to confirm the veracity of its content. Witnesses did not need to be literate, to be able to sign by their own hand, or even to form a cross on the papyrus. Several high-ranked village officials witnessed documents but required somebody else to sign for them. Among these was Comes son of Chael, who is the most frequently mentioned dioiketes in Aristophanes’ texts (P.KRU 11.3, 14.4, 15.4, 39.14, 40.13, 41.4, 43.10). He acted as witness in P.KRU 14.99, where he appears as вІ•вІџвІ™вІ‰вІҐ вІЎвІ‡вІ“[вІџвІ“вІ•вІЏвІ§]вІ‰вІҐ “the dioiketes Comes,” but he did not sign by his own hand. Aristophanes himself wrote this witness statement.208 For those who did write, accomplished penmanship was not a prerequisite. It was simply a case of being able to write, as stated in P.CLT 6.4–6: вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІҐвІџвІџвІ©вІ›М… вІ™вІ‰вІ› вІ›вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ вІ‰вІ©П©вІ©вІЎвІџвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰ П©[вІ›] вІ›вІ‰вІ©П-вІ“П«вІ™М…вІ™вІ“вІ› вІ™М…вІ™вІџвІџвІ© вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІҐ[вІџвІџвІ©вІ›] вІЃвІ› вІ›М…вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ вІ‰вІ©вІЃвІ“вІ§вІ‰вІ“ вІ›М…вІџвІ©П©[вІ©вІЎвІџ]вІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰вІ©вІҐ вІ‰вІ§вІЈвІ‰ПҐП©вІ©вІЎвІџвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰ П©вІЃвІЈвІџвІџвІ© “Those who know how to write sign by themselves, (while) those who do not know how to write ask a writing assistant to sign for them.”209 Three skill levels are found among these writers: (i) limited: these hands are characterized by their irregularity, in alignment, margin and letter spacing, and in the writing of letters with multiple strokes; (ii) novice: this intermediate level maintains regularity throughout, but

clumsy formations and a loss of consistency occur (especially toward the end of long statements, if the writer tired); (iii) advanced: such hands are regular, fluid, and well formed, and it is difficult to separate them from professional hands.210 These writers employ a mix of styles, from fast, cursivePage 82 → scripts to square majuscule hands. A thorough description of their hands is not provided here, as the prime concern at present is who wrote which documents and what these attributions reveal about the production of the documents. Figures 2.6–8 provide an indication of the range found.211 If we exclude from consideration the tax receipts, in which the pairs Andreas/Petros and Papnoute/Dioscorus sign (see chapter 4.3), and broken passages, forty-one other writers can certainly be identified within this dossier, as either witnesses or amanuenses or as both. As it has not been possible to consult P.KRU 95, 101, and 103, information contained in those documents is omitted from this discussion, even though known writers do occur there. Table 3.1 lists these men in alphabetical order. When an individual has no patronymic or is only known by a title, such as “priest,” no other attestations are given, due to the difficulty of identifying such men. Recorded below are only their other appearances as writers, not instances when they are named in documents in other capacities. Only two of these writers are known professional scribes, David son of Psate212 and Shmentsney son of Shenoute.213 A small number of the others included their titles. The dioiketes Demetrios son of Leontios, unlike Comes son of Chael, was able to write his own statement.214 It is also possible that Papnoute son of Stephanos served as dioiketes at one point, although not until ca. 760.215 However, when he acted as witness, he did not include his titles, and only on the basis of prosopographic evidence is his standing in the community known. Conversely, Isaac son of Constantine, who appears most regularly as either witness or amanuensis, did not include a title in his witness statements but did serve as lashane at one time. Isaac could barely scratch out his statement in his early years (he was a limited writer), but his statements overall display an improvement in his ability (to novice level) that is of the utmost importance for establishing the chronology of Aristophanes’ dossier.216 One writer, Victor son of Panachore, bore the designation Apa, but he is not associated with a monastic institution. Ecclesiastical titles are borne by five writers, four of whom (Johannes, Petros, Phoibammon, and Zacharias) provided no patronymic, and it Page 83 →is consequently impossible to say anything further about them. The fifth, Shmentsney son of Shenoute, has already been mentioned above, as he was also the scribe of several legal documents. The only other title found among the writers is “deacon,” which was held by Marcus son of Papnoute. Marcus appears four times in this dossier, making him the second most common witness, after Isaac son of Constantine.217 In P.KRU 48.61–66, he wrote the subscription for the first parties—Paulos, Marcus, Leontios, Ananias, Charis, and Nemphe—but did not additionally write his own witness statement. He there referred to himself as вІЎвІ‰вІ—вІЃвІ-(вІ“вІҐвІ§вІџ)вІҐ вІ›вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ•(вІџвІ›вІџвІҐ) вІ›вІ§вІ•вІЃвІ‘вІџвІ—вІ“вІ•вІЏ вІ‰вІ•вІ—вІ‰вІҐвІ“вІЃ вІ›П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ “the most humble deacon of the parish church of Djeme” (lines 64–65).218 He referred to himself simply as deacon in P.KRU 17.48, to which he bore witness and acted as amanuensis for Shenoute son of Phoibammon. In P.KRU 27.63–65 (where he served as witness and amanuensis for the first party) and 52.29 (where he was witness and amanuensis for another man), he included no title.219 Marcus wrote in a competent majuscule hand, with few ligatures but with some unevenness (fig. 2.6), and can be classified as a novice who was adequately trained to write these more complex statements involving signatories and witnesses other than himself. There is insufficient evidence with which to categorize who could write and what bearing this had on how they learned to write. However, the available prosopographic evidence suggests that these men were from high levels of village society. Titles that do occur are either ecclesiastical or official, with several “great men” of the village appearing, including the dioiketes and lashane (although not all men held these titles at the time of signing these documents). This can be extrapolated to witnesses more generally, although the number of witnesses who included a title is even lower than the number of those who could write. No titles beyond those already mentioned occur. In addition to providing information about writing ability in the village220 and what type of people could write (to

greater or lesser degrees), close analysis of the witness statements provides extra information about the organization involved in drawing up private legal documents. In P.KRU 14, Papnoute son of Stephanos first wrote his own witness statement: вІЃвІ›вІџвІ• вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ«вІЃвІ›вІџвІҐ вІ§вІ“вІ± вІ™вІ›вІ§вІЈвІ‰ вІЎвІЈвІџвІҐ вІ§вІЏвІ§вІ‰вІҐ вІ›вІ§вІ‰вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ‰вІҐ “I, Page 86 →Papnoute son of the late Stephanos, bear witness at the request of the deed of sale” (lines 94–95).221 Four lines later, he served as amanuensis for another witness, the name of whom is mostly destroyed: вІЃвІ›вІџвІ• [В .В .В .В ] вІ§вІ“вІ± вІ™вІ›вІ§вІЈвІ‰ вІЃвІ›вІџвІ• вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ«вІЃвІ›вІџвІҐ вІЃвІ“вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ П©вІЃвІЈвІџПҐ П«вІ‰ вІ™вІЃПҐвІ›вІ±вІ‰ вІ›вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ “I [NN] bear witness. I, Papnoute son (of) Stephanos, wrote for him, because he cannot write” (lines 100–102). These two statements are separated by that of three other men (the dioiketes Comes, Athanasios son of Georgios, and Apa Victor son of Comes), which Aristophanes wrote.

Writer Aaron son of Elias Ammonios son of Marcus Amos son of Cosma Antonios son of Matthias Apader son of Piam1 Colluthos son of Johannes2 Constantine son of Apa Cyrus Cosma son of Pisenthios

Page 84 →Table 3.1. Writers appearing in Aristophanes’ dossier Other Attestations appearances in dossier as a writer 1

P.KRU 40.39

—

1

P.KRU 43.71–73

—

1

P.KRU 43.79

—

2

P.KRU 11.62, — 87.59

1

P.KRU 87.53

2

P.KRU 41.111–112, P.KRU 12.65–66 43.76–77

1

P.KRU P.KRU 1.128–313 41.113–114

1

P.KRU 58.31–32

P.KRU 90.48

P.KRU 15.95–96

P.KRU 22.66–67

Damianos son of 1 4 Cosma David son of 5 2 Psate Demetrios son of 2 Leontios6 Enoch son of 1 Ello Epiphanios 1 son of Pcher8

—

P.KRU 43.75, O.CrumVC 6v.16 (witness); P.KRU 5, 19, 22, 24, 29, 90, 98, 102 87.54 (scribe) P.KRU 48.71, P.CLT 9.29;7 P.KRU 12.58, 21.91–94 52.31–32 P.KRU P.KRU 82.55, 83.27 26.25–29 P.KRU — 41.102–103

Georgios son 2 of Cosma9 Georgios son 2 of Daniel Georgios son 1 of Johannes

P.KRU 39.78, P.KRU 3.63–66 + 77, 90.25,10 115.1711 40.40 P.KRU 17.50, P.KRU 21.99–100 27.66–67

Georgios son 1 of Pheu

P.KRU 10.69–70 P.KRU 14.88–93, 25.51–52, 47.78–79, 48.72, 87.47–52

Isaac son of 5 Constantine

Isidoros son 1 of Daniel Johannake son of 1 Cosma12 Johannes (priest)13

2

Johannes son 1 of Cyriacus Joseph son of 1 14 Athanasios Leontios son 1 of Stratige Marcus son 1 of Anastasios Marcus son 4 of Papnoute Mena son of 1 Samuel16 Papnoute son 2 of Cyriacus Papnoute son of 2 17 Stephanos Petros 1 (priest) Petros son of 1 Andreas

P.KRU 43.78

— —

P.CLT 9.21–22; P.KRU 24.146–150, 50.72–73, 54.19–23

P.KRU 11.61

P.KRU 24.131–133 + 138–142

P.KRU 39.82–83

P.KRU 70.63–64

P.KRU 25.49–50, 47.75–77 P.KRU 48.67–69 P.KRU 87.60–61

— — —

P.KRU — 41.104–106 P.KRU P.KRU 20, 111 (scribe)15 39.72–77 P.KRU 17.47–49, 27.63–65, — 48.61–66, 52.29 P.KRU 15.102–104 P.KRU 10.64, 52.30 P.KRU 14.94–95 + 100–102, 15.97 P.KRU 15.98–101

P.KRU 2.52–53 —

P.KRU 90.24

—

P.KRU 48.7018 P.KRU 35.91

Phoibammon 2 (priest) Phoibammon son of 1 Athanasios Pisrael son 1 of Paulos

P.KRU 25.53, — 47.80–82 P.KRU 58.30

P.KRU 71.65–67

P.KRU 52.33

P.KRU 19.90–98, 42.5219

Prase son of 1 Colluthos

P.KRU 39.79–81 + P.KRU 4.88–90 84–85

Prase son of 1 Johannes

P.KRU 58.33

—

1

P.KRU 10.62–68

—

1

P.KRU 58.27–29

P.KRU 12, 13, 56, 106 (scribe)

1

P.KRU 11.63

—

1

P.KRU — 41.107–110

1

P.KRU 10.63

Psate son of Constantine Shmentsney son of Shenoute Stephanos son of Joseph20 Victor (Apa) son of Panachore Zacharias (priest)

—

Page 85 →1A monk, Apater, wrote P.KRU 100, but it is not possible to determine if he and the Apader here are the same man (I have not been able to consult the original of P.KRU 100, which is in Cairo, to compare the paleography of the two). The first party of P.KRU 100 was not from Djeme, although witnesses to the document were (e.g., the priest Ap(ol)lo at lines 72–73), and the document was not necessarily written in Thebes. As a comparison, while the first party to P.KRU 96 does not cite his location, the deed was written by a priest from Ermont and witnessed by people from the Hermonthite nome, so the first party was also probably from this area, not Thebes. 2Another

Colluthos son of Johannes appears in P.KRU 80 (dated 776) as a witness who signed his own name. He and this Colluthos are probably not the same man. Apart from the late date of P.KRU 80, the Colluthos there notes that he is from Ermont. 3The

statement of Petros son of Damianos and Constantine son of Apa Cyrus is the last to survive on P.KRU 1. Neither man claims that he wrote the statement, but the hand is certainly Constantine’s, who wrote in a large, limited hand in each case. 4Damianos,

who wrote his name вІ§вІЃвІ›вІџвІҐ, is the first party in P.KRU 15, in which is employed the same orthography as that in P.KRU 22. 5David

also acted as witness to P.KRU 95, written by Aristophanes, but I have not been able to check the original manuscript, so I exclude all writers occurring in it from this table. 6Demetrios 7It

also served as dioiketes and lashane in Djeme, for which see chapter 2.4.

may be the case that Demetrios also wrote for the following witness, but lines 30–31 are mostly lost.

8Epiphanios

is the first party in P.KRU 41. Till (1962, 84) does not note him as writing his own statement.

9Georgios

may also appear in O.Vind.Copt. 107.8, but the ink is too faint to determine his role there.

10The

editio princeps attributed the statement of Georgios here to Papnoute son of Stephanos. The style is similar, as is that of many of the men who witnessed this donation deed, but it should be attributed to Georgios. 11The

editio princeps did not note this statement as being in a second hand (noting Isaac son of Zacharias as the only hand in this document other than that of the scribe Swai son of Philotheos). 12The

editio princeps of P.KRU 39.82 has ⲯⲁⲛⲛⲁⲕⲉ “Psannake.” This name is not otherwise attested, and its editor, Crum, listed it as ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲁⲕⲉ in his index of the volume. The name of Johannake son of Cosma is otherwise attested, and Till (1962, 106) lists that name for this statement. The editio princeps should therefore be transcribed as + ⲁⲛⲛⲁⲕⲉ ⲕⲟⲥⲙⲁ. 13Johannes’

statement in P.KRU 47 is too faint to compare to that in P.KRU 25, and it may be the case that two different men wrote these statements. 14A

Joseph son of Athanasios appears as witness in P.KRU 39.82 and 43.76. However, his statements there are written by Johannake son of Cosma (see relevant entry above) and Colluthos respectively. To account for this, Till (1962, 113) suggested that there may have been two men with the same name. It is also possible that Joseph learned to sign his name in the intervening years. 15Marcus’

writing is more advanced in P.KRU 20 and 111 than in P.KRU 39, in which he can be classified as a novice who was not much beyond the beginner phase. This classification is in keeping with the dates of the documents in question: P.KRU 20 was written in 759, ten years after P.KRU 39 (P.KRU 111 bears no dating criteria). The editio princeps did not recognize Marcus as the scribe of these documents—he is not included in the index of scribes—even though he states that he wrote both (P.KRU 20.127–130, 111.31–33). This was already corrected in Till 1962, 137. It is possible that Marcus acted as witness in P.KRU 30.45–46, but the patronymic is lost, and the manuscript is not available for study. 16Till

(1962, 141) lists the Mena of P.KRU 15 as Mena son of Camul(?), based on the transcription of the patronym in the editio princeps. The writer, Mena, employs a number of minuscule letters in his writing (as is also seen in his writing of вІѓ in вІЃвІѓвІЈвІЃвІЃвІ™ in line 103), and вІҐ (Пѓ) was misread here and in line 104 as П-. This reading is corroborated by his statement in P.KRU 2. 17Papnoute

was the second party to P.KRU 22, in which he purchased property next to a church (in P.KRU 29, he purchased a house next to the same church), surrounded by property belonging to his father (Stephanos son of Papnoute was more likely his father than his son). Here, he is referred to as О»О±ОјПЂПЃПЊП„О±П„ОїП‚, an epithet normally reserved for village officials, such as the dioiketes Comes son of Chael in P.KRU 4.3, the meizoteroi (for dioiketes) Athanasios son of David and Mena son of Paham in P.KRU 10.3, and the dioiketes Psemo in P.KRU 84.2. At this later stage (ca. 759/60), Papnoute must have been a member of the village elite, perhaps the dioiketes immediately after Comes son of Chael, whose last attestation is in P.KRU 20 (759). 18The

editio princeps transcribed this statement as on a single line, but Petros actually wrote it over two. As is the case throughout this study, I have retained the line numbering of the editio princeps, for ease of reference. This is also the case with Isaac’s statement in line 72 (of the editio princeps). 19The

original of this manuscript was not available for consultation. Therefore, I could not determine if Pisrael wrote only his statement or those of others as well (the editio princeps makes no note of hand changes in the manuscript). 20In

P.KRU 11, the statements of Stephanos and Panis son of Piam are written in the same hand, but neither man took credit for writing them. Neither man occurs elsewhere, so it is not possible to compare the writing here to anything else written by either of them. Papnoute’s paleography is the same in the first of these statements as in P.KRU 15. Both texts exhibit Greek

script features: вІЎ, вІ™, and вІ• are written in the quadrilinear style used by Aristophanes in his Greek script. In the second statement in P.KRU 14, however, standard Coptic formations are written. Yet the вІ§вІ‰ ligature and the writing of вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰ (with the exception of the initial вІЎ) are the same, as is the use of the diaeresis in вІ§вІ“М€вІ±. The same man wrote both statements. The general aspect of the hand also differs between the two statements in P.KRU 14. The first is more even, with consistent and darker ink flow. In the two Greek-style statements (P.KRU 14.94–95 and P.KRU 15), Papnoute signed for himself; in P.KRU 14.100–102, he wrote on behalf of somebody else. Perhaps this is why he decided to make his hand less Greek, or maybe he was writing with greater speed and less care. It is clear and important to note that the same individual wrote on the same document at two different times. The same situation occurs in P.KRU 39, in which the two statements of Prase son of Colluthos are interrupted by that of Johannake son of Cosma. Prase wrote first for Arow son of Chael, Johannes son of Moses, Stratige son of Elias, and himself (lines 79–82) and then for Dioscorus son of Cosma and Apa Cyrus son of Psate (lines 84–85). The statement of Dioscorus and Apa Cyrus is the last before Aristophanes’ notation. As with Papnoute, Prase’s writing in the second block of text is not as well written as that in the first. The second block is larger and less even, but ligature patterns and the use of superlinear strokes remain the same. In part, the paleographic differences may be connected to the quality of the papyrus at this point. Prase here was writing along the join, where the vertical fibers are split, creating a rougher writing surface. One point of note is his decision to finish the second statement above the end of the line, rather than on the line below. While the editio princeps transcribes the end of line 85 simply as вІЃвІ“вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ П©вІЃвІЈвІџвІџвІ© “I wrote for them,” what was actually written is Page 87 →вІЃвІ“вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ П©\вІЈвІџвІџвІ©/.222 Prase ensured that he did not take up any more space, despite there being ample available before the notation.223 When Aristophanes himself acted as amanuensis within his own documents, the position of his statement among the witnesses appears initially to be inconsistent.224 The case in P.KRU 14 involving Papnoute, in which Aristophanes’ statement is sandwiched between those written by Papnoute, is discussed in chapter 2.4. Of Aristophanes’ other documents, P.KRU 8 can be removed from this discussion, as a particular situation in which Aristophanes wrote the entire document, and P.KRU 87 is exceptional because he did not write the body of that deed. This leaves P.KRU 15, 17, and 26. Aristophanes wrote statements in P.KRU 15.105–109 for Athanasios son of Georgios (for whom he also wrote in P.KRU 14), in P.KRU 17.51–54 for Chael son of Psemo (for whom he also wrote in P.KRU 87), and in P.KRU 26.30–31 for Phares son of Joseph. That these three statements were written last in each document enables a reconsideration of P.KRU 14. It is possible that Aristophanes’ statement for Athanasios, Comes, and Apa Victor was originally the last written and that the final statement—for a witness whose name is unfortunately lost—was a late addition to the document. Why, though, did Papnoute, not Aristophanes, write this addition? The same question can also be addressed to P.KRU 39 and Prase’s statements there. Further, why did Aristophanes not write for all witnesses that required assistance? This is one of several questions concerning the logistics of document production that cannot be definitively answered. In each of the four documents that he signed for others (P.KRU 14, 15, 17, and 26, excluding P.KRU 8 and 87 for the reasons stated above), other writers also served as amanuenses. Certain people may have had preferences for who signed for them. For example, Isaac son of Constantine signed for his father, Constantine son of Isaac, in P.KRU 24, 54, and 87 (in P.KRU 26, Enoch son of Ello signed for him instead). Were all witnesses present at the same time, when the document was read aloud, after which they signed one after the other? Nothing within the documents confirms that this happened. References to the document being read out may be entirely formulaic. The reference at P.KRU 48.57–58—ⲁⲩⲟϣⲥ вІЃвІЈвІџвІ› вІЃвІ›вІҐвІџвІ§вІ™вІ‰вІҐ вІЃвІҐвІЈвІЃвІ›вІЃвІ› Page 88 →вІЃвІ›П«вІџвІџПҐ П«вІ‰ вІҐвІ™вІџвІ›вІ§ вІ›вІ§вІ‰вІ“П©вІ‰ “It was read out to us, we heard it, it pleased us, we said вЂJust like this’”225 (cf., similarly, P.KRU 15.92–93)—is written in reference to the first party only, not the witnesses. Where did the whole process take place? Aristophanes had a house and land. Did he work from there or elsewhere in the village, that is, in a place where literate men (on a varying scale of literacy) were readily available? A centralized workplace would account for why some individuals, including village officials, appear repeatedly. Can we speak of a notarial office within which professional scribes such as

Aristophanes worked? These aspects of the documentary process simply are not recorded.

3.5. More than the Sum of His Words The words that Aristophanes wrote are the vital element in his documents. These texts, whether of a legal or administrative nature, were produced because of the matters that they needed to record. However, modern editions, with their homogenized fonts and formats, conceal a wealth of other information concerning the world in which the originals were created. Analysis of the physical papyri and ostraca contribute to the understanding of different aspects of scribal processes. Modern printed fonts do not always convey subtle changes in script, such as those that Aristophanes employed throughout his dossier. Language shifts were accompanied by graphic shifts. These shifts take him beyond his village walls and connect him with wider scribal trends happening throughout Egypt. Without examination of the documents, Aristophanes’ deteriorating ability to write would not be known. This is first evident in P.KRU 11 and reached its pinnacle in P.KRU 15, which somebody else had to correct, another scribe who might have written P.KRU 87. Finally, Where Aristophanes wrote cannot be established, but the proliferation of literate men, senior village officials, and priests and deacons, several of whom occur repeatedly in his texts and those written by others, suggests an office from which such people were close at hand.

Page 89 →

Chapter 4 Recording Taxes The majority of the documents in Aristophanes’ dossier concern taxation, both directly and indirectly. He first became involved with taxes in 724, when he wrote two tax demands226 from the office of Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh, pagarch of Luxor and Esna and the Arab official responsible for the taxes of the Theban region. In the same year, he acted as an amanuensis in P.CLT 6, a tax agreement between seventeen villagers. After these two texts, there is a hiatus until 727, at which point he reappears in the textual record with a bang, writing all his tax receipts between 727 and 730. In this period, he also wrote five passes for safe conduct and a request for a travel permit, P.CLT 3, all of which are closely associated with tax payment. This body of material points to a highly organized system of tax assessment, collection, and control, with which Aristophanes was integrally involved. Another means by which tax collection was controlled was through the limiting of the number of scribes responsible for its administration. Throughout the two decades in which they were produced at Djeme, one scribe at any given time was principally responsible for drawing them up. Aristophanes was the last of these scribes, and the developments in the administrative process—including use of formulae and the personnel involved—reached its culmination with him. After Aristophanes, there is no evidence of the recording of tax collection in the village.227 Page 90 →

4.1. A Communal and Personal Burden Tax documentation from Thebes primarily records the burden of individual men. This disguises the mechanisms by which the amount of tax due was determined. From Thebes, how this was organized is not recorded. Only receipts for the principal money taxes survive. To understand the processes involved, it is necessary to look at evidence elsewhere in the country. Before that, an examination of the Theban documentation shows what individual men paid. The receipts that Aristophanes wrote are almost entirely for the poll tax. One document with which he was involved, P.CLT 6, both provides the only evidence for communal tax responsibility at Djeme and records an agreement concerning an obligation that is otherwise unattested in the village. Although it cannot be proved that he wrote the entire document,228 Aristophanes certainly was involved in its production, acting as amanuensis for one of the named parties. This is the only Theban communal agreement, which is variously referred to in the body of the text by the synonymous terms П©вІџвІ™вІџвІ—вІџвІ…вІ“вІЃ вІ›М…вІ•вІџвІ“вІ›вІ±вІ›вІ“вІ•вІџвІ›М… (lines 18–19), вІҐвІ©вІ™вІ«вІ±вІ›вІџвІ› вІ›вІ•вІџвІ“вІ›вІ±вІ›вІ“вІ•вІџвІ› (lines 43–44), and вІ•вІџвІ“вІ›вІЏ П©вІџвІ™вІџвІ—вІџвІ…вІ“вІЃ (line 45) and is once referred to as an “understanding” (вІ‰вІ©вІ›вІЃвІ“вІ›вІ‰вІҐвІ“вІҐ, line 11). Its original editor, Arthur Schiller, understood it as an agreement involving the entire village, concerning the naval duty (вІ•вІџвІ©вІЈвІҐвІџвІ›, П„бЅё ОєОїбї¦ПЃПѓОїОЅ, from Latin cursus) and other duties more generally (вІЃвІ—вІ—вІЃвІ…вІЏ, бјЂО»О»О±ОіО®229). As none of the seventeen men who signed the agreement stated that they did so on behalf of the rest of the community, it is more likely to be an agreement between these men specifically as to the payment of these Page 91 →taxes.230 The terms state that should one of the men listed decide not to fulfill his naval duty or not be free to do so, he would pay to the authorities a large sum suitable to prevent another from serving in his stead. This is the only mention at Thebes of the naval duty, but it is better known in documents produced elsewhere in Egypt, notably in the Coptic and Greek texts from Aphrodito. Cursus denoted the regular raids against the Byzantine Empire by the Caliphate, whose fleet must have been substantial. The crews for these ships were divided into a military part, on the one hand, and rowers, helmsmen, and so forth, on the other. Men from villages throughout Egypt were conscripted for the latter group. Rowers and helmsmen are denoted by the term nautes

(ОЅО±ПЌП„О·П‚) and were the subject of declarations and agreements from Aphrodito. For example, P.Lond. IV 1494231 is a declaration by senior village officials concerning the production and behavior of three sailors and the promise to pay a fine should any of the three flee their duty, and P.Lond. IV 1497 concerns the receipt of forty-six sailors. The possibility of flight was a serious one, with the evidence showing that conscripts would undertake what measures they could to avoid serving, whether flight or, as in P.CLT 6 here, substituting payment for physical service. P.Lond. IV 1508 and 1509 show that money was frequently offered as a substitute for conscription—in both instances, for building works—but also that labor was preferred by the Arab officials.232 Aristophanes wrote on behalf of one of these seventeen men, Athanasios son of Sanchem. Of all the signatories, seven are unattested elsewhere: Constantine son of Philotheos, Daniel son of Phoibammon, Lala son of Matthias, Nicharav son of Pachom, Petros son of Isaac,233 Theophilos son of NN, and Zacharias son of Calacolef. Two men, Ignatios son of Matthias and Phoibammon Page 92 →son of Pises, appear in connection with taxes in other documents, as taxpayers.234 Several of these men also appear in name lists:235 Abraham son of Pses, Ignatios son of Matthias,236 and Zacharias son of Petros, for whom this is the only other attestation.237 The most important individuals, on the basis of their surviving attestations, are Cyriacus son of Petros, a professional scribe who also wrote tax receipts;238 Abraham son of Pses, who served as lashane; and Ezekiel son of Matthias, who served as dioiketes.239 These titles place Abraham and Ezekiel among the senior members of the village, and it is not beyond reason that the other men named were also prominent members, if not “great men,” of the village, with the ability to buy their way out of the cursus. As stated, this is the only attestation of this imposition at Thebes. The most common tax attested at Djeme is the poll tax, which was payable by all adult non-Muslim males.240 While evidence for precisely who constituted this group of taxpayers is rare, two short texts from the senior officials of the village Tjinela in the Hermopolite nome state that the group included all men from the age of fourteen: вІ›вІЎвІ›вІ•вІЃ вІЈвІ±вІ™вІ‰ вІ‰вІЎвІЃП©вІџвІ© П©вІ› вІЎвІ›вІ§вІ“вІ™вІ‰ вІ§вІЏвІЈвІѓ П«вІ“вІ›вІ‰ вІ™вІ›вІ§вІЃвІѓвІ§вІ‰ вІ›вІЈвІџвІ™вІЎвІ‰ вІ‰П©вІЈвІЃвІ“ “We have not omitted anybody from the entire village, from the age of fourteen years” (P.Lond.Copt. I 1079/1.2–4). The text mentions КїAmr (“IВ .В .В . swear by God Almighty and the health of КїAmr”), a reference to КїAmr b. al-КїДЂб№Ј, the general who conquered Egypt and served two terms as governor of the country, in 641–644 and 658–664. In the written record from Thebes, the poll tax was the diagraphon Page 93 →(ОґО№О¬ОіПЃО±П†ОїОЅ).241 Elsewhere, the term andrismos (бјЂОЅОґПЃО№ПѓОјПЊП‚) was also used. The two terms are synonymous except in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, in which Aristophanes used both diagraphon and andrismos. This demand records the taxes that Daniel son of Pachom was to pay in years 7 and 8 (lines 3–5). .В .В . the assessment of the public taxes [demosion] of the 7th indiction year, year 105, and the expenses tax [dapane] of the 8th indiction year, year 106, namely, taxes [andrismos] for one person for the poll tax assessment [kephalismos242]: nomisma 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/12 + 1/48. Thus, the poll tax [diagraphon]: nomisma 1 + 1/2; expenses tax [dapane] for 12 months: nomisma 1/3 + 1/24; expenses tax [dapane] for amir al-mu’minin: 1/24 + 1/48. Andrismos here refers to all the taxes combined, which are divided in this demand into the public taxes, naming only the poll tax (diagraphon), and two separate expenses taxes (dapane). The expenses tax was levied to cover the costs incurred by the Arabs and was usually for a small amount.243 The expenses tax for twelve months may refer to the standard dapane imposition. In addition to the dapane covering general expenses, there were a number of extraordinary expenses taxes, requisitioned with certain targets in mind. One of these appears in Daniel’s tax demand, the expenses tax for amir al-mu’minin—the Commander of the Faithful244—that was intended for the caliph in Damascus. Aristophanes’ distinction between public tax and expenses tax is of note, as all expenses taxes should be included among the public taxes. If demosion and andrismos were inverted in this demand, the terms would be correctly applied, and andrismos and diagraphon would be clearly synonymous: “the assessment of the poll tax [andrismos] of the 7th indiction yearВ .В .В . public taxes [demosion] for one personВ .В .В .” It is possible that this is a mistake Page 94 →by Aristophanes, based on his unfamiliarity with

this term that is otherwise unattested in western Thebes.245 This text provides an indication of the taxes paid by a single adult male in the village. Daniel’s total payment for the poll tax of the seventh indiction year (723–724) was one and one-half holokottinoi.246 The two expenses taxes for the eighth indiction year are for smaller amounts: the expenses tax for twelve months is onethird plus one twenty-fourth holokottinos, and that for the О±mir al-mu’minin is one twenty-fourth plus one forty-eighth holokottinos. Daniel’s total tax for these two years was a little less than two holokottinoi. Whomever P.Bal. 130 Appendix B was issued to paid the same amount for all taxes. How and when these taxes were to be paid is not stipulated and will be discussed later. It is first necessary to examine the other evidence for tax payments and what it contributes to the evidence for individual tax burdens. All but three of Aristophanes’ receipts are for the poll tax, the other three being for the expenses tax of the governor (see below). Each receipt was not for the entirety of the annual payment of the taxpayer named but for one installment. This process of payments by installment is not explicit in the wording of Aristophanes’ receipts, but other scribes included reference to two payment periods. Psate son of Pisrael and Johannes son of Lazarus247 refer to payments in either the first or second katabole (вІ•вІЃвІ§вІЃвІѓвІџвІ—вІЏ, ОєО±П„О±ОІОїО»О®), as in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 346.4–5: П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› П©вІ“ вІ‡вІ‰вІ©вІ§вІ‰вІЈвІЃ вІ•вІЃвІ§вІЃвІѓвІџвІ—вІЏ вІ›ПЇвІЈвІџвІ™вІЎвІ‰ вІЎвІЈвІ±вІ§(вІЏ) “for your poll tax in the second payment of the first year” (written by Psate).248 Each katabole could, in turn, be paid in smaller installments, each of which is termed an exagion (бјђОѕО¬ОіО№ОїОЅ).249 This term appears in one text by Aristophanes,Page 95 → P.Schutzbriefe 27. Consideration of the entire corpus of the tax receipts that Aristophanes wrote makes it clear that each one represents a single installment. Appendix 3 collates the information from Aristophanes’ tax receipts, in chronological order.250 Only six of the sixty-seven men who appear in this list also have receipts written by another scribe:251 Johannes son of Pisenthios,252 Phoibammon son of Theodoros,253 Psyros son of Elias,254 Shenoute son of Abraham,255 Swai son of Abraham,256 and Victor son of Samuel.257 Aristophanes wrote multiple receipts for nine men. The receipts of four of these men were for taxes in the same year, indiction year 10, each of which was written in indiction year 11. The information for each is provided here in chronological order. Elias son of Paulos,258 total 1 1/6 holokottinoi SB Kopt. II 1006 1/2 holokottinos Epiph 18, indiction 11 SB Kopt. II 960 1 tremis Mes[ore—] SB Kopt. II 968 1/2 tremis Me[sore—] SB Kopt. II 974 1/2 tremis Paope 11, indiction 11 Page 96 →Jeremias son of Basilaios, total 1 holokottinos O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231 1/2 tremis Pachons [—] O.Vind.Copt. 90 1/2 holokottinos Pachons 20, indiction 1[1] O.BM EA 31805 1 tremis Hathor 1, indiction 11 Onnorios son of Laleu, total 2/3 holokottinos O.CrumST 415a 1 tremis Pachons 9, indiction 11259 O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 521 1/2 tremis Paope 11, indiction 11 O.CrumST 415b 1/2 tremis Paone 15, indiction 11 Stephanos son of Abraham, total 1/2 holokottinos

SB Kopt. II 1022 1 tremis

Mesore 3, indiction 11

SB Kopt. II 1005 1/2 tremis Mesore 27, indiction 11 Since we do not know whether any of these cases represent the complete annual installments, the individual burden of each man may have been higher. Striking about these dossiers is the short time frame between installments. They were generally paid in consecutive months, and all occur in the first half of the year. Figure 4.1 shows the date distribution of all Aristophanes’ receipts. This graph only includes receipts that preserve at least a month, if not a specific date. In addition, eighteen receipts bear only the indiction year, of which sixteen date to 727/728, one to 728/729, and one to 729/730. This date range shows that Aristophanes was engaged in recording taxes in the first half of the fiscal year, between May and September in 727, 728, and 729, with few receipts falling outside these periods. Even though few receipts survive for the later two years, this pattern is still maintained. That a few payments were made in the second half of the year suggests that a second payment period (katabole) existed at this time, but it is possible that these instances represent late payments.260 The situation appears to be that there was not a biannual collection, but that all payments in 727 were to be paid by the beginning of Paope (i.e., the end of September / beginning of October). Receipts for the expenses tax are less common. Of Aristophanes’ 106 receipts, expenses taxes account for only 3, expressly for the expenses of the governor Page 97 →(ОґО±ПЂО¬ОЅО·П‚ П„Оїбї¦ ПѓП…ОјОІОїПЌО»ОїП…): O.Giss. inv. 551, O.Petr.Mus. 574, and SB Kopt. II 1008.261 This tax is apparently not the same as the tax for amir al-mu’minin that was stipulated in the tax demand written to Daniel. These receipts for expenses taxes are connected in three ways: the type of tax recorded, the day on which they were written (Hathor 5, indiction year 11, i.e., 2 November 727), and the language in which they were written (Greek). They were not, however, for the same amount of tax or the same taxpayer: SB Kopt. II 1008 was issued to Johannes son of Pisenthios for one-half tremis, O.Petr.Mus. 574 was issued to Psyros son of Elias for one-half tremis, and O.Giss. inv. 551 was issued to Psasou son of Abraham for one tremis. Of these men, only Psyros appears in another receipt by Aristophanes, O.Kelsey inv. 25262, also written in indiction year 11, for one-half tremis toward his Page 98 →poll tax. The amounts paid are higher than that for the amir al-mu’minin in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and only slightly less than the expenses tax for twelve months.262 It is therefore possible that these single receipts represented the extent that each man owed for that year for this particular tax.263 Fig. 4.1. The date distribution of Aristophanes’ receipts Aristophanes wrote two other receipts in Greek, SB XVIII 14037 and O.Hyvernat 17, but these are for the poll tax. Both receipts include unusual amounts, which may account for Aristophanes’ choice of language. There are no other clear reasons why these two receipts should otherwise have been written in Greek, as both taxpayers—Swai son of Jacob and Colluthos son of Mousaios respectively—also had receipts issued in Coptic.264 However, as it is argued below in section 4.4 that receipts were not issued to individuals but were stored in separate archives, perhaps the choice of language was determined by to whom the receipts were delivered. This would have to be tested through analysis of all tax receipts in Greek from Djeme. Daniel’s annual tax burden is higher than the annual tax paid by any other man, on the basis of their surviving receipts. However, none of Aristophanes’ dapane receipts are issued to men to whom he also issued poll tax receipts. This is not to say that P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B are the only evidence for men in the village paying multiple taxes. In indiction year 11, Psyros son of Elias paid both the expenses tax265 and the poll tax,266 but these payments are for the taxes of indiction years 9 and 10 respectively. This follows the pattern found in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, which requisitioned taxes for subsequent years within the single demand. In both cases, Psyros paid one-half tremis; no other receipts for him are known for this year, although more would surely have been issued.267

Page 99 →As I stressed at the beginning of this section, the tax evidence that survives at Thebes is from the final stages in the administrative process, the collection of payments from individuals. Lacking at Thebes is evidence of the total tax burden for the region or individual villages, from which individual liability was determined. The assessment process is well known from elsewhere and can be extrapolated to Thebes.268 A register of taxpayers for each village, prepared by trustworthy assessors selected by the local officials, listed the landholdings of each man and the amount of tax for which he was liable. These registers were then sent to the central treasury at Fustat, which used them to determine the tax quota of each pagarchy as a whole and for each village individually. These quotas, which largely remained constant from year to year, were embedded within demand notes (бјђОЅП„О¬ОіО№О±)269 that were sent to the pagarchs and then to the villages. Dividing the total sum between villagers may have been the task of the original assessors. It is unfortunate that no such registers exist from Djeme. P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, written as if from the pagarch, obscures the process, as it makes no mention of local authorities.270 Other than these two documents, the Theban record is silent concerning its relationship with external officials. Indeed, other than P.CLT 6, there is no evidence for communal responsibility for any impositions.271

4.2. Recording Individual Tax Payments Tax receipts exhibit the least amount of variation of any document type in Aristophanes’ dossier. Individually, they may not reveal much about his scribal habits and professional activities, but their collective value is greater than the sum Page 100 →of their parts. All the receipts were written on ostraca, predominantly potsherds, although limestone flakes are also present. The number that he required on certain days (fig. 4.1) suggests that he kept a ready supply of these, rather than picking them up when needed. Available images show that he had no preference for size and shape.272 The irregularity in their shape is in contrast to the regularity of their layout and formulae. Tax receipts are short and highly standardized, so much so that they can be considered forms, in which only the particular details—name, amount of tax, and date—differ. This is not to say that Aristophanes wrote a series of blank receipts and later filled in the specifics.273 Each receipt was certainly written at one time, as the division of words over lines and the lack of any spaces within the main text of the receipts demonstrate.274 Language use is always consistent throughout, with Greek sections integrated into the text for specific purposes. So standardized are his receipts that it is possible to draw up a blank one. The following blank receipt is written as if for a payment of one tremis (the amount paid affected the grammar of the passage, i.e., for gender agreement).275 To best display the different elements, the receipt is broken down into six sections. 1. Receipt of payment:вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) вІЃПҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§ П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• NN П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) вІ›бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) [x] 2. Greek rГ©sumГ©:ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„ОїП‚) Оі Вґ П„ПЃОЇП„ОїОЅ 3. Date:month + day [ y] + бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) [x+1]276 4. Strategos’ consent:[ NN] бЅЃ ПѓП„ПЃ(О±П„О·)Оі(бЅёП‚) ПѓП„(ОїО№)П‡(Оµбї–) 5. Signatories (Г— 2):[ NN] вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІЏ 6. Notation:бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†(О¬ОЅО·П‚) бј”ОіПЃО±П€О± (1) Here is one tremis, it has come to me from you, NN, for your poll tax in the public taxes of the [x] indiction year; (2) i.e., 1/3, one-third, nomisma. (3) Month + Day + [x + 1] indiction year. (4) NN the strategos consents.277 (5) NN signs [Г— 2]. (6) Aristophanes wrote. Page 101 →A seventh element found in approximately half of his receipts is the countersignature by a different individual, not otherwise named, on the reverse of the ostracon (see section 4.3). Two variations other than the amount of tax involved are found, both of which appear to be free variants. There are no discernible reasons for either. First, there is an approximately even division between receipts that have

“it has come to me” (вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§) and “it has come to us” (вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ›). The latter may refer to Aristophanes together with the two signatories and the countersignatory, but these people were all present even when Aristophanes wrote the singular form. Second, the title strategos is not always included. Aristophanes wrote for the strategos (there are no examples of one signing for himself), and the omission of the title does not appear to have been due to space considerations. One of the most notable features of these receipts is the mix of Coptic and Greek. Indeed, the two appear in equal measure.278 These are bilingual receipts in form, but Aristophanes was not a bilingual scribe. Aristophanes’ use of Greek is specific and restricted to the date, the repetition of the price in an abbreviated form (the rГ©sumГ©), the consent of the strategos, and his signature. Aristophanes later applied this same practice to his legal documents, in which the date (including the reference to the indiction year in the recording of arbitration in settlements), the repetition of the price in deeds of sale, and his signature are also written in Greek. The repetition of the price was especially important: it guaranteed that the correct amount was written and that any official who read the receipt could identify this information. The signatures of the two signatories could be transcribed as Greek, as they comprise a name and the Greek verb only. This construction also conforms to the Coptic I Present and is the same construction used in the consent statement of the first party in legal documents. There is no reason to infer that these men would sign in Greek rather than Coptic, their own language. Indeed, the varying orthography of the verbs by the same signatory (see section 4.3) may support the case for them not knowing any Greek. The receipts that Aristophanes wrote in Greek differ in form minimally from the mixed-language receipts. He did not need—and almost certainly did Page 102 →not acquire—a high level of competency in Greek to be able to write them. Only the beginning of the first section differs to the Coptic form. The ОґО-ОґП‰ОєОµ formula used is well attested at Djeme and was most commonly used for Greek receipts. The highest number of these were written by Psate son of Pisrael (who frequently wrote the first-person form ОґО-ОґП‰ОєО±).279 Again, an empty receipt can be constructed based on standard formulae: 1. Receipt of payment: О”О-ОґП‰ОєОµNN (бЅ‘ПЂбЅІПЃ) Оґ(О±)ПЂ(О¬ОЅОїП…) П„Оїбї¦ ПѓП…ОјОІОїПЌО»(ОїП…) бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) [x] 2. Payment:ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„ОїП‚) Оі Вґ П„ПЃОЇП„ОїОЅ 3. Date:month + day [ y] + бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) [x + 1] 4. Strategos’ consent:[ NN] бЅЃ ПѓП„ПЃ(О±П„О·)Оі(бЅёП‚) ПѓП„(ОїО№)П‡(Оµбї–) 5. Signatories (Г— 2):[ NN] вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІЏ 6. Notation:бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†(О¬ОЅО·П‚) бј”ОіПЃО±П€О± (1) Given by NN for the expenses tax of the governor of the x indiction year; (2) i.e., 1/3, one-third, nomisma. (3) Month + Day + [x + 1] indiction year. (4) NN the strategos signs. (5) NN signs [Г— 2]. (6) Aristophanes wrote. In addition, Aristophanes wrote two receipts for the poll tax in Greek, SB XVIII 14037 and the unpublished O.Hyvernat 17.280 Neither of these is complete, but they both start with the same formula, бј”ПѓП‡ОїОЅ ПЂО±ПЃбЅ° ПѓОїбї¦ ОќОќ “I have received from you NN,” which is parallel to the Coptic form and not that used for the expenses tax. This formula may be connected to the model that Aristophanes used for each receipt. As for why he used Greek at all, see the comments at the end of section 4.1.

A Development in Receipt Forms The receipts that Aristophanes wrote in indiction year 13 are the last attested tax receipts from Djeme. Before him, only five other scribes wrote tax receipts. The best known of these are Psate son of Pisrael and Johannes son of Lazarus. ContemporaryPage 103 → to Psate are Anastasios and Psan son of Basileios, who together form group 1. Cyriacus son of Petros was contemporary to Aristophanes, and together they are group 3. Johannes fits between these groups, chronologically and stylistically, and alone forms group 2.281 Cyriacus employed the same form as

Aristophanes (indeed, his paleography and use of formulae are so similar that it can be difficult to differentiate between the two, as is discussed further in section 4.3). The other scribes do not conform with Aristophanes, either paleographically or in their use of formulae and terminology. Only one receipt was written by a man other than these five: SB Kopt. I 261.8 bears the notation ОљП„О№ПѓП„О·П‚ бј”ОіПЃ(О±П€О±) “Ktistes wrote.”282 This receipt is not for the poll tax. It records two receipts, one written on each face of the ostracon, for the вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџвІҐвІ“вІџвІ› вІ›вІЎвІЃвІ™вІ‰.283 The meaning of вІЎвІЃвІ™вІ‰ is not clear; it may mean “the shepherd” or be an error for вІЎвІЃвІ™вІЃ “my place.”284 Whether or not either of these is correct, it is clear that this was a land tax, because one receipt was issued to a woman, Thellena. It is possible that this tax was administered separately and that Ktistes was never responsible for any other taxes. Psan wrote eleven receipts that date to indiction years 1 and 2 (May 717 to January 719).285 Anastasios wrote six receipts dated to the second half of the third indiction year (15 July to 1 December 719).286 These years occur within the middle of the period in which receipts were written by Psate, the longest-serving scribe of tax receipts (713/4–726).287 These three men are consistent in their use of formulae and key terms, which differ from those used by Aristophanes. (Greek receipts, discussed in section 4.1, are omitted here, as the following discussion focuses on Coptic receipts only.) These Page 104 →terms include вІЃвІЈвІ“вІ‘вІ™вІ“вІЃ (бјЂПЃОЇОёОјО№О±) “counted, reckoned” and so forth; вІ•вІЃвІ§вІЃвІѓвІџвІ—вІЏ (ОєО±П„О±ОІОїО»О®), which refers to one of two payment periods in the tax year;288 and the title вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ‰, not strategos, for the official named in the receipt, whose consent was invariably written by the scribe himself. The only difference between the three scribes is that Anastasios signed in Greek,289 while Psate and Psan nearly always signed in Coptic.290 While Greek linguistic elements (e.g., the rГ©sumГ©) are included, there is no graphic switch in the writing of them, as was employed by Aristophanes. SB Kopt. II 1019, by Psate, is a representative example of this style, presented here in the layout employed above for Aristophanes. 1. Receipt of payment: вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©П©вІџвІ—вІџвІ•(вІџвІ§вІ§вІ“вІ›вІџвІҐ) вІ›вІЃвІЈвІ“вІ‘вІ™вІ“вІЃ вІЃПҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§ П©вІ“М€вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• вІЏвІ—вІ“вІЃвІҐ вІ—вІЃвІ—вІЃ П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› П©вІ“ вІ§вІЎвІЈвІ±вІ§вІЏ вІ•вІЃвІ§вІЃвІѓвІџвІ©вІ—вІЏ вІ›М…вІ§вІ‰вІ“вІЈвІџвІ™вІЎвІ‰ вІ§вІ‰вІ§вІЃвІЈвІ§вІЏ 2. Greek rГ©sumГ©: вІ…вІ“(вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІЃвІ“) (вІЃ)вІЈ(вІ“)вІ‘(вІ™вІ“вІЃ) вІЃ 3. Date: вІ™(вІЏвІ›вІ“) вІЃвІ‘вІ©вІЈ вІ•вІ‹ вІ“вІ›вІ‡(вІ“вІ•вІ§вІ“вІ±вІ›вІџвІҐ) вІ‡ 4. Strategos’ consent: вІ•вІЃП«вІџвІ©П« вІЎвІЃвІЎвІЏ ПЇвІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“ 5. Signatories (Г— 2):n/a 291 6. Notation: вІЇвІЃвІ§вІ‰ вІЎвІ“вІҐвІЈвІЃвІЏвІ— вІЃПҐвІЃвІ“вІ§вІ‰вІ“ вІ™вІ™вІџвІ“ вІЃвІ“вІҐвІ™вІ› вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ‰вІ›вІ§вІЃвІ…вІ“(вІџвІ›) “(1) Here is one counted holokottinos. It has come to me from you, Elias (son of) Lala, for your poll tax in the first payment of the third year, (2) i.e., 1 reckoned (nomisma292). (3) Month: Hathor 26, indiction year 4. (4) Kajouj the ape consents. (6) He asked me, Psate (son of) Pisrael, and I drew up this entagion. Page 105 →The use of entagion (вІ‰вІ›вІ§вІЃвІ…вІ“вІџвІ›, бјђОЅП„О¬ОіО№ОїОЅ)293 to refer to these receipts is contrary to its use in letters from the governor from elsewhere in Egypt, when it is an order for the payment of taxes, delivery of supplies, and execution of work.294 As Aristophanes referred to the orders P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B as вІЎвІ“вІ§вІ§вІЃвІ•вІ“вІџвІ› (ПЂО№П„П„О¬ОєО№ОїОЅ),295 the transcribed term entagion is not used here to refer to specific document types. Instead, references to “(tax) demand” and “(tax) receipt” are used for sake of clarity. Johannes son of Lazarus wrote receipts in indiction years 9–11, but the nucleus of his activity was between March and June 726, before Aristophanes became the principal taxation scribe in Djeme.296 Johannes shows the least consistency in his use of formulae. Some conform to the pattern exhibited by group 1 (note the use of

ⲁⲣⲓⲑⲙⲓⲁ and ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲃⲟⲗⲏ), while others are more closely connected to group 3 (which does not use those terms and includes the amount of tax as both a numeral and in full in the Greek résumé). Johannes mostly signed in Coptic, but there are examples of a Greek signature, as in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 277.9–10, which follows the pattern of group 3: ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲛⲗⲁⲍⲁⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲅⲣⲁⲯⲉ (this does, though, show interference from Coptic, with the use of genitival ⲛ-). The differences in his receipts are evident in the following two examples:

SB Kopt. I. 254 1. Receipt of payment: вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©П©вІџвІ—вІџвІ•(вІџвІ§вІ§вІ“вІ›вІџвІҐ) вІ›вІЃвІЈвІ“вІ‘вІ™вІ“вІЃ вІЃПҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ›М… П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• вІ“М€вІҐвІЃвІ•вІ•вІЃвІ™вІЃвІ—вІ±вІ“М€П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•ПЇвІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› П©вІ“М€ вІ§вІ“вІЎвІЈвІџвІ§вІЏ вІ•вІЃвІ§вІЃвІѓвІџвІ—вІЏ вІ›вІ§вІ“вІЈвІџвІ™вІЎвІ‰ вІџвІ•вІ§вІџвІЏвІҐ 2. Greek rГ©sumГ©: вІ…вІ“(вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІЃвІ“) вІ-вІЈ(вІ©вІҐ)вІџ(вІ©) вІ›вІџ(вІ™вІ“вІҐвІ™вІЃ) вІЃ297 3. Date: вІ«вІЃвІ™вІ‰вІ›вІ±вІ‘ вІ“вІ‹ вІ“вІ›вІ‡(вІ“вІ•вІ§вІ±вІ›)вІџ(вІҐ) вІ‘ 4. Strategos’ consent: вІ…вІ‰вІџвІЈвІ…вІ“вІџвІҐ вІЎвІЃвІ©вІ—вІџвІҐ вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ‰ вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-(вІ‰вІ“) 5. Signatories (Г— 2):n/a Page 106 →6. Notation: вІ“М€вІ±вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐвІ›вІ—вІЃвІЌвІЃвІЈвІџвІҐ вІЃвІ“вІҐвІ™вІ›вІ§ПҐ (1) Here is one counted holokottinos. It has come to us from you, Isaac son of Kamaloi, for your poll tax in the first payment of the eighth year, (2) i.e., 1 gold nomisma. (3) Phamenoth 16, indiction year 9. (4) Georgios (son of) Paulos, the ape, consents. (6) Johannes (son) of Lazaros wrote it.

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 270 1.Receipt of payment: вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏвІҐвІ“вІџвІ› вІЃПҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§ П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• вІѓвІЃвІҐвІ“вІ—вІ‰ вІ‰вІЈвІ‰вІ™вІ“вІЃвІҐ П©вІЃ вІ§вІ‡вІ“вІџ[вІ“]вІ•(вІЏвІҐвІ“вІҐ) вІ›вІ§вІ“вІЈвІџвІ™вІЎвІ‰ вІ‰вІ›вІ›вІЃвІ§вІЏвІҐ 2. Greek rГ©sumГ©: вІ…вІ“(вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІЃвІ“) вІ›вІџ(вІ™вІ“вІҐвІ™вІЃвІ§вІЃ) вІ…МЃ (вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ§вІџвІ›) 3. Date: вІЎвІЃ(вІ±вІ›вІ‰) вІЏ вІ“вІ›вІ‡(вІ“вІ•вІ§вІ“вІ±вІ›)вІџ(вІҐ) [вІ“]298 4. Strategos’ consent: вІ™вІЃвІЈвІ•вІџвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-(вІ‰вІ“) 5. Signatories (Г— 2):n/a 6. Notation: вІ“М€вІ±вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐвІ›вІ—вІЃвІЌвІЃвІЈвІџвІҐ вІЃвІ“вІҐвІ™вІ›вІ§ПҐ “(1) Here is one tremis. It has come to me from you, Basilaios (son of) Jeremias,299 for the taxes in this ninth indiction year, (2) i.e., 1/3, one-third, nomisma. (3) Paone 8, indiction year [10?]. (4) Marcus signs. (6) Johannes (son) of Lazarus wrote it. The first receipt is earlier, written in the ninth indiction year for taxes of the eighth; the second was written a year later. All Johannes’ later receipts are not for the poll tax (diagraphon) but are for either the expenses tax (dapane) or the dioikesis, the exact nature of which is unclear.300 Johannes’ use of formulae does not appear to have been dictated by the tax being collected.301 The chronological distinction between them may indicatePage 107 → that he was writing at a transitional period in how tax collection was recorded.302 In this light, his receipts demonstrate a shift in practice at Thebes. It is not evident who was responsible for this change. The tight control over taxation at this time may suggest that external officials imposed the use of these formulae, but there is no evidence for who these officials were (i.e., from what level of the administrative hierarchy) or how this requirement was implemented. The changes introduced at this time reached fruition under Aristophanes and Cyriacus, who were consistent in their practice throughout their receipts.

4.3. A Team Effort Tax receipts do not only name the taxpayer. As seen in the discussion of their form in section 4.2, the following individuals may also be named: the scribe (Aristophanes signed all his receipts, except for O.Col. inv. 154 and 160, but this is not the case with other scribes, especially Psate), an official (either the strategos, as in Aristophanes’ receipts, or the earlier ape), signatories (these only appear in Aristophanes’ and Psate’s receipts), and a countersignatory (who, if present, signed on the reverse). All receipts bear the name of an official, but the other individuals do not appear consistently except in Aristophanes’ receipts, which always include the official and two signatories, while a countersignature is present in approximately half his receipts. Indeed, the consistency of this practice provides one means to differentiate between receipts written by Aristophanes and Cyriacus, which show strong paleographic and formulaic similarities: none by Cyriacus include the signatures of any other individual.

Strategoi Every tax receipt was signed by a strategos. In total, eight different individuals appear in this capacity in Aristophanes’ dossier: Anastasios, Cyriacus, Onnophrios, Philotheos, Psemo, Samuel, Solomon, and Stephanos. Onnophrios occurs most frequently (nineteen times); apart from Psemo (occurring once) Page 108 →and Shenoute (occurring twice), the other men appear with roughly equal frequency (fig. 4.2).303 Their appearance on these receipts is not determined by date. Figure 4.3 shows the data from the three days that have produced the largest number of receipts: Epiph 18, indiction year 11 (12 July 727); Mesore 27, indiction year 11 (20 August 727); and Thoth 9, indiction year 11 (9 September 727). The information for some days is lost, including almost a quarter of the receipts written on Epiph 18. Despite this, between five and six strategoi appear on each of these three days. Therefore, these men do not represent a sequence of officials. Rather, this title was held by several people simultaneously. The Greek term strategos (ПѓП„ПЃО±П„О®ОіОїП‚) is synonymous with the earlier Coptic ape (вІЃвІЎвІ‰), which was used by Psate, Psan, and Athanasios. Johannes, when he included the title, also used вІЃвІЎвІ‰; however, in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 270—quoted above as an example of a later receipt by Johannes—Marcus does not have a title (the abandonment of вІЃвІЎвІ‰ may be another indication that Johannes represents a transitional period). While вІЃвІЎвІ‰ literally means “headman,” the title does not appear to be the equivalent of the dioiketes or the lashane.304 One possibility is that these individuals were in charge of the fiscal administration of different areas of the town, although this remains to be proven.305 If so, ape would indicate the administrative head of each area. The later use of strategos is to be understood as part of the appropriation and reimagining of terms by the new administration, which is witnessed in other situations.306 Its replacement of ape, together with the previously noted changes in how collection of the poll tax was recorded, is another indication of intentional changes made to the system’s operation during the mid-720s.

Signatories All of Aristophanes’ receipts, apart from a small number that are damaged, bear the signatures of the pairs Andreas and Petros or Papnoute and Dioscorus. Andreas and Petros first appear on Pachons 9, indiction year 11 (4 May 727),307 and they sign all of Aristophanes’ receipts until Tobe 7, indiction year 12 (2 January Page 109 →729).308 They are the most frequent pair. Their names survive in eighty-seven receipts (in five of these, Petros’ name is lost but can certainly be restored); five other damaged receipts written in this time frame can also certainly be attributed to them. The last fourteen of his receipts date between Pachons 30, indiction year 13 (25 May 729),309 and Epiph 26, indiction year 13 (20 July 729),310 and they were signed by Papnoute and Dioscorus.311 It is possible that some receipts were written in early 730, as O.Kelsey inv. 25077 (text 8 in appendix 2) preserves only year 13 in its dating clause, but this late date, half a year after the last certainly dated receipt, is perhaps unlikely. Fig. 4.2. Tax receipts per strategoi

Each man appears to have signed in his own hand (all signatures are variations of an unligatured majuscule), although this is not always easy to determine.Page 110 → For example, in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231, the formation and height of the letters written by each is remarkably similar, with the exceptions that Petros’ letters lean more to the right and that his epsilon is narrower than Andreas’.312 However, in O.Vind.Copt. 87, the two hands are markedly different, with Petros’ signature being less well formed and uneven. The similarities in the first text may be the result of both men using the same writing implement, with a fine tip, which improved the quality of the overall appearance of their writing. Two orthographic features indicate that the two wrote separately. Andreas was prone to dittography in his signature, writing вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІЏrather than вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІЏ, but Petros was not, even though his name also ended in sigma. The instances of this are numerous, but O.Vind.Copt. 88 preserves the best example.313 The orthography of вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІЏ, although mostly consistent, varies, with Andreas sometimes writing вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ“М€ , in which the diaresis makes it clear that iota, not an eta that has been damaged,314 was written. This writing is clearest in Page 111 →O.Vind.Copt. 90, in which the iota with diaresis is followed by a cross.315 Together, these differences suggest that these men did sign by their own hand. Fig. 4.3. Strategoi appearing in tax receipts on the same day It is more difficult to differentiate between Papnoute and Dioscorus, partly because there are fewer examples with which to compare their signatures. As sometimes seems to be the case with Andreas and Petros, both appear to have used the same pen—for example, in O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943 (text 5 in appendix 2). Other than omicron, a simple shape that is rarely a distinct form, their names share no letters that can be compared. Orthographically, they show no differences, both writing вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-вІ‰. They may have written individually, but this cannot be determined definitively. None of these four men include a title in their signature. This is also the case with the six signatories that appear in Psate’s receipts: Ananias son of Abraham and Victor son of Thomas, Comes and Pcher son of Athanasios, and Mena son of Paham and Athanasios son of Papnouthios.316 However, Ananias and Victor can be identified with the lashanes in P.KRU 35, who bear the same patronymics.317 Mena son of Paham may also be identified with the official in P.KRU 10.3 (the ОјОµО№О¶/),318 together with a different Athanasios, the son of David. It is unlikely that the two were the same man, as this would necessitate a mistake by Aristophanes in P.KRU 10,319 and misidentifying the senior official in the village seems improbable.320 There is no evidence for Comes and Pcher as lashanes. However, as it is unknown who did serve in this capacity in 719/20 (i.e., after Ananias and Victor), it is possible that they did hold this title. In the late 720s, it is again uncertain who served as lashane.321 Of the four Page 112 →men named—Andreas, Petros, Dioscorus, and Papnoute—only Petros is attested as a village senior, as the dioiketes in P.KRU 50 and 51. However, these texts are later,322 and the lack of patronymics in Aristophanes’ receipts makes any identification tenuous at best. They must have held an important position within the village, confirming the receipts through the writing of their signatures. Nothing beyond this can be concluded.

Countersignatories Almost half of Aristophanes texts are countersigned on their back. Georgios, Isaac, Jacob, and Patzarei are each attested once, while Abraham signed forty-five receipts (forty-six if SB Kopt. II 1000, in which traces survive of a countersignature, was also by him).323 Each man wrote his name, followed by the amount of tax paid, in an abbreviated notation: for example, Ἀβρ(αὰμ) νό(μισμα)x “Abraham, x nomisma.” Such countersignatures were not a compulsory part of these receipts, as the name of the strategos and the two other signatures were in Aristophanes’ receipts. Most of these receipts were written on two days: Epiph 18 (12 July 727, fifteen receipts) and Mesore 27 (20 August 727, ten receipts plus SB Kopt. II 1000). The numbers of those receipts may well be higher, for eleven receipts that Abraham signed do not have a preserved date. Figure 4.4 shows the distribution of all forty-six of Abraham’s receipts; for the receipts that preserve only a year (e.g., 727/728), only receipts bearing a signature are included, in order not to distort the results by including the

high number of receipts that do not bear a signature. On Paope 11 (9 October), Patzarei also countersigned one receipt, and on Thoth 9 (7 September 727), we witness another instance in which different individuals countersigned receipts, when Georgios and Jacob signed one receipt each. Signatures are found on the reverse of tax receipts written by other scribes as well. Among the earliest of these is SB Kopt. I 239, signed by Mena and Athanasios and written in indiction year 5 (two points indicating that Psate wrote the receipt), countersigned by Phoibammon son of David. This, however, is not actually a countersignature but that of the taxpayer himself. His name is also not followed by a repetition of the price. A similar practice is found in two other receipts by Psate: P.Stras.Copt. 39 and 42, in which the taxpayer’s name, Elisaios, is written on the reverse, together with the amount of tax.324 Fig. 4.4. Distribution of Abraham’s signature Page 113 →Not until the receipts of Johannes do countersignatures by an individual not named in the receipt occur. The best attested individual in this role is Andreas, who occurs in seven published receipts dated to the middle of 726.325 Unlike Abraham, Andreas included a title after his name, pragmateutes (ПЂПЃО±ОіОјО±П„ОµП…П„О®П‚), but did not repeat the amount of tax paid. A second pragmateutes, Mena, signed two other receipts written by Johannes, O.Medin.HabuCopt. 276 and O.Moen inv. 33.326 He also wrote only his name and title, with no repetition of the tax. While the form of signature used by these men is different to the forms used by the men who countersigned Aristophanes’ receipts, the title pragmateutes is perhaps to be applied to all countersigners after 726. What purpose did they serve? Pragmateutes occurs in other contexts at Thebes, where it has its standard meaning of “trader” and so forth, but this is surely not how the term was used on tax receipts.327 Gascou suggested that these men were substitutes for the taxpayer named Page 114 →in the receipt.328 Referring to them as “substitutes” suggests that Abraham paid (rather than just signed) on their behalf. These payments would entail over four holokottinoi on Epiph 18, over two holokottinoi on Epiph 27, and one holokottinos on Thoth 11. The total paid on these three days alone, over less than two months, was over six holokottinoi. Indeed, the total would have been higher still, given the number of receipts that do not preserve a date. The idea that one individual could pay such vast sums of money for so many different men should be rejected. Wilfong understood pragmateutes as meaning “agent,” suggesting that such agents acted for both the taxpayer and the tax collectors.329 Precisely what functions they carried out, however, is left unsaid. Three features from the data presented thus far are key: not all receipts bear a countersignature by a man not named in the main receipt, more than one man fulfilled this role, and such countersignatures only occur in receipts from 726 and 727. These years have already been noted as important: the first marks when Johannes wrote the majority of his receipts, and the second is when Aristophanes started to write receipts, as well as the year in which most were written. Once again, this practice appears to begin during the transitional phase in how taxes were recorded. One other aspect, yet to be discussed, is pivotal in understanding the role of such men: how taxes were collected and how these receipts were stored.

4.4. Collection and Storage The presence of the same individuals in a large group of receipts suggests that tax collection was a group effort, with the scribe (Aristophanes), two signatories (Andreas and Petros), and a countersigner (Abraham) working together on the same days.330 This indicates a level of coordination between these four men. The strategoi never signed by their own hands; the receipts are issued with their consent in name only. They were not actively part of the process. Can a situation be envisaged, however, in which the four men whose signatures are present Page 115 →together went house-to-house collecting taxes? Further, how was it determined whose taxes would be collected on particular days? The tax burden fell on the community as a whole, as discussed in section 4.1. Tax demands and receipts give an

idea of who paid which taxes and how much, although the surviving information is only partial. One seemingly nondescript ostracon that Aristophanes wrote may provide an insight into how he organized the collection process. O.CrumST 444 is a name list that has previously received only a partial edition, which transcribed some of the names in continuous lines of text. Upon closer inspection of the original, this seemingly mundane document becomes more interesting. Instead of the nine names transcribed in the editio princeps, twenty-three names were originally written, in two columns (of twelve and eleven names respectively). Of these, ten names can still be read, but the remaining thirteen are lost, having been deliberately erased in antiquity.331 This text possibly holds the key to how Aristophanes organized a day’s work. The highest number of preserved receipts for a single day is sixteen from Epiph 18, while the second highest is fourteen from Mesore 27. If the thirteen erased names on O.CrumST 444 represent the people to whom Aristophanes was able to issue receipts, this number of receipts fits well with the number issued on other days. Unfortunately, the erasure was too complete to allow the reading of any other name, so this list cannot be matched with the known taxpayers of any particular day. Other such uses of name lists—if this is what some were in fact used for—are difficult to identify. This is largely the result of the nature of the original editions, which, as in this case, do not always accurately represent what was written on the ostracon. Some name lists are certainly writing exercises,332 while others that are now broken may once have been part of accounts (with the numerals now lost).333 Aristophanes wrote one other list, O.Medin.HabuCopt. 24, but it is not of the same type. All nine names there, which include Aristophanes’ own at the end, are clear, and there have certainly been no erasures. Three names in the list are attested elsewhere,334 although this Page 116 →is not to say that they are necessarily the same men, and none of the other attestations provide any assistance in helping determine the purpose of this list. The presence of Aristophanes’ own name suggests that the list had a different function. As the name list is in Aristophanes’ hand, he may have copied it from a longer account, perhaps on papyrus. Whether the selection of names was his own or determined by another administrator, it did not represent the most efficient means of collection. The presence of five and six strategoi on receipts issued on the same day suggests that Aristophanes circumnavigated the village on each day, visiting multiple neighborhoods in turn (this proposal is predicated on the strategos being the financial head of individual neighborhoods). In this scenario, Andreas and Petros went with him, to sign each receipt as it was written. Alternatively, as the physical evidence of the text suggests that Aristophanes wrote his text at once, it is possible that he wrote the receipt at the point of collecting the money and that the other men only signed the receipts afterward, once they had verified that Aristophanes had collected the money. It is perhaps important to stress that Aristophanes’ receipts do not state that receipts were written for the taxpayers themselves (Psate’s signature stating “he asked me and I wrote” may be entirely formulaic). Rather than as receipts for the taxpayers, these texts are best understood as proof that Aristophanes collected the money: they may well have been written in front of the taxpayer, to indicate that the correct process had been undertaken, but the evidence supports a scenario in which they were kept by the tax officials. Once the receipts were no longer required as proof of tax collection, they were discarded in groups. Finally, there is the issue of Abraham’s position in the system. The evidence for his role in the process appears to be in the archival history of the receipts that he signed. With two exceptions, O.Medin.HabuCopt. 230 and O.Vind.Copt. 89, all his receipts belong to a single acquisition by the Louvre. Despite the patchy nature of the archaeological record of the village and the lack of exact findspots for all except a small number of ostraca, similar caches of tax receipts can be identified. One of the most important of these is the aforementioned group involving Johannes, Joseph, and the pragmateutes Andreas. These were purchased for Michigan by Carl Schmidt in 1936/7 as one lot, together with other tax receipts.335 The acquisition of such closely related texts at the same Page 117 →time signifies that these were once part of the same original archive.336 They were not, therefore, part of the private archives of individual taxpayers, as may well be expected.337 Consequently, they are not receipts that were written for the benefit and safekeeping of the taxpayer.338 Instead, they served a different purpose. Delattre and Fournet suggest that these groups may represent an intermediary office between the taxpayer and the central fiscal office.339 Abraham and, before him, Andreas may have been financial officials whose task was to verify the content of each receipt brought to them. Perhaps this is how the term pragmateutes is to be understood, as an administrative title. Abraham’s paleography certainly places him within an administrative context. He

signed his name with a minuscule form of ОІ,340 the same as that written by Aristophanes and Cyriacus in the Greek sections of their documents.341 It may also have been his task to produce an account of all receipts that was to be sent to the pagarch, who was responsible for the taxation of the area (see section 4.1). When Abraham was not available to sign receipts, even only temporarily, this task may have fallen to his deputies, which would account for the small number of receipts signed by Georgios, Isaac, Jacob, and Patzarai (this would also account for the presence of Jacob among the Louvre group). Similarly, Andreas may have been deputized by Mena, who is attested less frequently. There are several possible explanations for why not all receipts were countersigned:342 (1) the pragmateutes may have only checked and signed a random selection of the receipts; (2) the signature may be lost on some receipts, as a result of worn ink or other damage; (3) this practice—a check by the pagarch’s office—may only have taken place over a short period. It is perhaps telling that almost all of Aristophanes’ datable, countersigned receipts are from the period Epiph 12 to Thoth 11 (12 July to 9 September). Only three fall outside these months: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 234 on Paone 4 (29 May), PSI inv. 68 on Paope 11 Page 118 →(9 October), and O.Vind.Copt. 89 on Paope 27 (25 October). The receipts by Johannes, signed by Joseph and countersigned by Andreas, present a similar pattern. They date to Epiph, Mesore, and Thoth of 726.343 The first quarter of the fiscal year appears to have been a time of especially rigorous monitoring of the taxation system. Hence this is the period to which the greatest number of receipts belong. The majority of receipts from 728 and 729, although far fewer in number, also date between late May and early October. That fewer survive may indicate either that they were stored elsewhere and that their archive is now lost or that these years never witnessed the peak that occurred in 726 and 727 in the monitoring and checking of the process.

4.5. No Taxes, No Travel Failure to pay taxes compromised the ability to travel. The travel petition P.CLT 3 includes, at the end, a note that the monks in question have paid their taxes for the twelfth indiction year: вІЃвІ©вІ± вІЃвІ©вІ§вІ“ вІЎвІ‰вІ§П©вІ“П«вІ±вІџвІ© П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџвІҐвІ“вІџвІ› вІ›О№ОІ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) “Moreover, they have paid what was due of them in the public taxes of the twelfth indiction year” (line 10). Each of the three monks—Joseph son of Patzuen, Theodoros son of Athanasios, and Marcus son of Taurinus—paid three holokottinoi for that year.344 Comparison with the tax demand sent to Daniel son of Pachom and the information collated in section 4.1, concerning individual tax payment, show that this is an extraordinarily high amount for a single year. It is not explicitly stated in the letter that travel is contingent on them having paid taxes, but this contingency is clear, and the description of them as free men (вІ‰вІ—вІ‰вІ©вІ‘вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ вІ›вІЈвІ±вІ™вІ‰, lines 8–9) stresses that they were eligible to travel. Travel permits legitimized travel and prevented travelers from being detained as fugitives.345 Page 119 →This letter is written from the dioiketes Chael and Johannes, to an Arab official who is unnamed but was presumably Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh.346 The three monks wished to travel north to the Fayum to sell their basketwork (вІЎвІЈвІЃвІ…вІ™вІЃвІ§вІ‰вІ“ вІ›вІ›вІџвІ©П©, literally “rope products,” lines 5 and 8).347 The letter does not state why, for such a mundane activity, they would want to travel so far north—approximately six hundred kilometers away and several days travel by boat (which would account for why they are asking for a permit for three months). Perhaps this is a cover story for other business that they had, either privately or on behalf of the monastery of Apa Paul. The Greek section at the letter’s end, together with their names, provides a brief description of each man, to ensure that the relevant authorities could identify them on their journey. The Greek employs a number of unusual terms among these colorful descriptions: Joseph is fat and corn-colored; Theodoros is dark and stout; Marcus is knuckly. This letter, although unique at Thebes, belongs to the same broad category of texts as the “assurance of God” (literally “word of God”) texts (вІЎвІ—вІџвІ…вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰), short letters of protection from village headmen to villagers.348 Unlike P.CLT 3, which requests a long-distance travel permit from the office of the amir, these shorter texts are issued by local authorities and are guarantees rather than permits. The assurances guarantee that the named person or people have paid taxes and can therefore travel. The

destination of the parties involved is not mentioned, but in contrast to P.CLT 3, these documents presumably covered short-distance travel only, as permission was granted by local Egyptian, not Arab, officials.349 Page 120 →Aristophanes wrote five such texts, O.BM EA 44848 and P.Schutzbriefe 10, 23, 27, and 28. They are formed around the same set of phrases, which can be broken down into the following sections: 1. Issuing authorities:ПЂО±ПЃ(О¬) ОќОќ (ОєО±бЅ¶) NN В± title 2. Recipient: вІЎвІ‰вІ©вІҐП©вІЃвІ“350 вІ›NN 3. Protection: П«вІ‰ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІЎвІ—вІџвІ…(вІџвІҐ) вІ™вІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰ вІ›вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ…вІ‰вІ“ вІ‰П©вІџвІ©вІ› вІ‰вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІЏвІ“ [В± additional information] П«вІ‰ вІ›вІ›вІ‰вІЎвІЃвІЈвІЃвІ…вІ‰ вІ™вІ™вІџвІ• [amount of tax to be paid] 4. Assurance: П«вІ‰ вІ›вІ›вІ‰вІ•вІЃвІ™вІ«вІ“вІѓвІЃвІ—вІ‰ вІЃвІ›вІҐвІ™вІ›вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ—вІџвІ…(вІџвІҐ) вІЃвІ©вІ± вІ§вІ›вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“ 5. Date:Month + Day + бј°ОЅОґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) [ x] 6. Notation:бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О¬ОЅО·П‚ ((П…бј±ПЊП‚) бјёП‰О¬ОЅОЅОїП…) бј”ОіПЃО±П€О± Apart from the date and notation, these documents share no features with tax receipts, including the lack of signatories. In form, they are written directly from senior village officials: their names at the beginning of the document and Aristophanes’ at the end were sufficient for imbuing the text with authority.351 A greater degree of variation is exhibited in these documents than in tax receipts, with the inclusion of additional information to meet the need of different individuals. P.Schutzbriefe 10 is the shortest of the four complete passes for safe conduct (O.BM EA 44848 is broken) and is the only one not to make mention of particular conditions. In the following translation, the additional passages—that is, those not part of set formulae—are in italics. + (1) From Georgios and Psate, (2) who write to Shenoute (son) of Petros and Stephanos. (3) Here is your assurance from God, so that you may come home, because we will not prosecute you but are in agreement with you in every matter. (4) In order that you are not concerned, we have drawn up this assurance and we consent. (5) Paone 11, indiction year 13. (6) Aristophanes has written. Page 121 →The promise not to prosecute352 the recipient of the assurance implies that they must have done something that could be subject to punishment. When additional information is provided—unlike in the text just cited—it is clear that travel was incumbent on payment of outstanding taxes. The connection between taxes and safe conduct is seen especially in texts that combine receipts with these assurance texts, such as P.Schutzbriefe 60–64. In P.Schutzbriefe 27, the recipient is Jeremias son of Basilaios, who is known from several tax receipts (listed in section 4.1), and his children. It is stated that Jeremias may return home, having fled (вІЎвІ±вІ§), and will not be punished over an installment of one-half holokottinos. Although it is not explicitly stated, the inference is that Jeremias was in arrears and had fled to avoid payment. The problem of fugitives who had fled to avoid tax payment was endemic throughout Egypt, as has already been noted. The details of all the passes that Aristophanes wrote are collected in table 4.1, which lists the texts in chronological order.

Text P.Schutzbriefe 27 P.Schutzbriefe 28 O.BM EA 44848 P.Schutzbriefe 10

Table 4.1. The details in Aristophanes’ passes for safe conduct Officials Recipients Tax to be paid Date Georgios + Aaron Jeremias son of Basilaios and his children 1/2 holokottinos 03 October7281 Georgios + Aaron Psate son of Elias

1/2 tremis

728/7292

[Georgios] + Aaron NN and Ammonios

Lost

Lost3

Georgios + Psate

Not mentioned 0.5 June 7294

Shenoute son of Petros and Stephanos

P.Schutzbriefe 23

Lost

Lost

1 holokottinos

11 July 7295

1P.Schutzbriefe

27.15: О¦О±бї¶П†О№ П› бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№ОІ. The date here is my correction, О№ОІ for О№, after physical inspection of the original ostracon, which is now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. 2P.Schutzbriefe

28.7: [В .В .В .В ] бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№ОІ. Till, the original editor, noted that E. Stefanski, who originally examined the ostraca excavated by the Chicago expedition, read Epiph 18 as the date. 3Based

on the presence of Aaron, this broken receipt was probably also written in 727/728.

4P.Schutzbriefe

10.7: О (О±)бї¦(ОЅО№) О№О± бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі.

5P.Schutzbriefe

23.6: бјПЂОµбЅ¶П† О№О¶ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі.

Not only are taxes mentioned in the passes, but the dates of these documents equate to the period of high taxation administration, during the first half of the fiscal year, when the majority of tax receipts were written. In the case of Jeremias, his receipt dossier was written between Pachons and Hathor of indiction year 11, that is, the previous year. Without any other information, it is impossiblePage 122 → to state whether this text was written in response to his nonpayment of other installments for that year (which were for indiction year 10) or of taxes of a later year. Neither Psate nor Shenoute appear in any known tax receipt.353 Unlike tax receipts, which were issued in the name of the strategos, these guarantees were issued by the highest village officials. In O.BM EA 44848 and P.Schutzbriefe 27 and 28, Georgios and Aaron are identified by the abbreviation meiz, which here may be the equivalent of the lashane.354 It is probably safe to extend this title to Psate, the official occurring with Georgios in P.Schutzbriefe 10. Georgios may be identified with the signatory of that name in P.Schutzbriefe 76, but this identification is not certain.355 An Aaron appears as lashane in P.KRU 23.26 and together with a Zacharias in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 122.6 and 182.5 and O.Vind.Copt. 53.10. None of these texts can be dated, and the name Aaron appears without a patronymic in each instance.356 Psate cannot be identified with any other known official. Aristophanes was involved in the writing of these documents as a result of his involvement in recording tax receipts during the same period. Many of these passes are not signed, and signatures are lost through damage on other receipts, but it is telling that Psate son of Pisrael and Johannes son of Lazarus wrote the same types of texts.357 Two texts that Psate wrote are dated indiction years 15 (P.Schutzbriefe 64) and 7 (P.Schutzbriefe 7), while Johannes wrote one in indiction year 8 (P.Schutzbriefe 42). Johannes wrote his receipts mainly in indiction years 9 and 10, but many were for taxes of indiction year 8. All three scribes were therefore writing both types of text in the same years. This situation again demonstrates the close association between taxes and travel. Page 123 →

4.6. The Importance of Scribes The 710s and 720s witnessed the peak in taxation documentation from Djeme. During this time, the recording process underwent developments in use of paleography, formulae, and personnel, as is evident in the receipts written in this period. The majority of changes occurred between 726 and 727, with the transition from Johannes to Aristophanes as the principal scribe. This is not to say that the impetus for these developments came from the scribes themselves. The developments must surely be part of wider changes happening in Egypt at this period and of a move to greater control and regulation of the collection of taxes. Psate’s receipts were issued for taxes of either the current indiction year or the previous one. Under Aristophanes, all receipts were for taxes of the previous year. At the same time, indiction year 11, Cyriacus collected taxes for indiction year 9—payments that were certainly in arrears. The difficulties faced by Arab

officials in exacting taxes from settlements down the Nile valley is evident in the Aphrodito archive from the years immediately precedent to when Djeme’s taxation records start.358 Several letters from the governor Qurra b. Е harД«k to Basilaios, the pagarch of the Aphrodito nome, concern arrears in various taxes.359 Deficits had been a problem prior to this period, although the evidence for earlier deficits is not as abundant.360 Such repeated admonitions may be a reflection of the governor’s helplessness in the face of resistance from local officials.361 The need to implement firmer control in the process would account for the explosion in administration recording. Fugitives remained an issue, and payments never returned to being for the current year. Perhaps in face of insurmountable odds or further changes that occurred outside the village, the evidence for tax collection stops at Djeme from 730. Throughout this process, scribes played a pivotal role. A small group of villagers were entrusted with the responsibility of collecting taxes and issuing receipts. A letter concerning tax collection and issued by the seventhcentury Hermopolite pagarch Shenoute illustrates the village scribes’ importance. Shenoute instructed his representative to “select fully capable scribes from your Page 124 →villages, so they can collect them [i.e., the taxes].В .В .В . However, I want you, from Psoi,362 to appoint two scribes, being authoritative and fully capable, to collect the grain of Pboah and Hanepioor and its farmsteads, so that you do not fail” (P.Ryl.Copt. 319.8–10, 21–25). The capability of the scribes is key, although the translation “fully capable” is debatable. The Greek term ОµбЅ”ПЂОїПЃОїП‚ can be understood to mean either having personal resources (i.e., wealth) or being resourceful or ingenious. The original editor of this text, Walter Crum, rendered the term as “well-to-do,” taking the first meaning.363 SB О™О™О™ 7241.14–15 (Aphrodito, 710) calls for trustworthy (ПЂО№ПѓП„ПЊП‚) men who are ОµбЅ”ПЂОїПЃОїП‚, which the original editor (Harold Bell) translated as “men of means.”364 If wealth is intended, it is difficult to see the purpose of this condition, as it is unlikely that poor scribes existed. To reach the level of education or professional training required to write such records, the scribes responsible would be from the wealthier sections of society.365 Perhaps a dual meaning, resourceful in terms of finances and capability, is acceptable. Ultimately, the ability to produce accurate records was paramount, and Aristophanes certainly met these requirements.

Page 125 →

Chapter 5 Recording Private Lives Poll tax receipts reveal little about the lives of the men named in them and nothing of women. For personal concerns and day-to-day affairs, we can turn to the papyrus documents, plus a small number of ostraca. These texts mainly concern personal property and money. Moving beyond the main issues recorded in individual documents, looking at the dossier as a whole reveals several connections between the personnel involved. Not only does this create biographies of men and women in the village, but it provides evidence of a different aspect of Aristophanes’ professional career. Simultaneously, these documents cast Aristophanes in a different light, as a villager interacting with his neighbors, with some of whom he had close relationships, beyond a scribe-client association.

5.1. Domestic Structures Most of these documents concern immovable personal property—houses and land. Using the textual record, the archaeological data is fleshed out, providing names for and relative locations of different rooms and different land categories. In his (illustrated) reconstruction of the disputed property of Elizabeth daughter of Epiphanius, Terry Wilfong gave an idea of the layout of such a house and how it could be divided for shared living.366 One of the houses that appears in Aristophanes’ dossier is divided between three members of the same Page 126 →family, that of Germanos son of Susanna (see section 5.6), which provides an opportunity to discuss the basic features of houses found in these texts.367 Architectural terms that are specific to individual texts—especially P.KRU 43, in which a series of unusual terms appear—are discussed later. Germanos’ house was located on Culol Street, one of many named streets in Djeme. The practice of naming streets points to the internal complexity of the village.368 In dividing the building, each sibling (two brothers and one sister) received rooms on different levels. As records of the three shares survive, all the rooms should be identifiable, yet preservation problems and difficulties in understanding the texts do not permit such identification (the ostracon bearing the sister’s share is very damaged, and no clear particulars survive, only parts of room names).369 A few observations about communal living can, however, be made. Each brother received one room: one was accessed from the main entrance room, and the other was under the stairs. The latter type of room was a common feature—also part of the divisions of Elizabeth’s house—and took advantage of the shape of the stairs, which hugged three sides of a square stairwell.370 The brothers also received fractions, one-quarter and one-third respectively, of an additional room. Presumably, the remaining section—almost half the room—went to the sister. The rooms that the siblings owned individually and together were not living rooms, bedrooms, or dining rooms but multipurpose spaces.371 Single rooms could be the object of sales: for example, P.KRU 26 (see Page 127 →section 5.4) records the sale of the room under the stairs. While the description of these rooms is not clear, it appears that both rooms that the brothers received were on the ground floor, in addition to the entrance room. Such a three-roomed structure is not described among the few houses that were surveyed in the early twentieth century, which typically comprise two rooms joined by the stairwell.372 The house in question may have been an especially large one in the village. A large house would fit the other evidence of the wealth of this family (see section 5.6). On the upper floors, the sister received a different type of room, called the exedra (вІ‰вІќвІ‰вІ‡вІЈвІЃ, бјђОѕО-ОґПЃО±), a term typically translated as “veranda.” It refers to a living area open on one side, with columns supporting the floor or roof above.373 Also on upper levels, all three siblings received parts of two storerooms (П«вІЏвІЈвІ‰).374 Basements would also have been used for storage purposes, but these rarely appear in the textual record from the village. In Aristophanes’ dossier, only P.KRU 43 (which, as noted above, contains a number of unusual terms) mentions such a space, calling it the katagaion

(вІ•вІЃвІ§вІЃвІ…вІЃвІ“вІџвІ›, ОєО±П„О¬ОіО±О№ОїОЅ).375 While some rooms and parts of rooms became the legal property of specific people and could be sold or used as their owners wished, other spaces remained communal property. In the case of Germanos’ house, which is typical of Djeme, communal areas were the entrance room (from which other rooms were accessed), the water container,376 and the stairs. Access to rooms was sometimes provided by external staircases, as is the case in P.KRU 39 and 40. Addendums to both those texts, written on the verso in each case, note that the entrance area was inaccessible and that, instead, the veranda (exedra) and the staircase outside it were communal. Courtyards (вІЃвІ›П©) provided open space within the village, and some propertiesPage 128 → were accessed from them rather than from the street.377 Multiple houses shared the same courtyard, but they were not communal property and could be bought and sold (including in smaller portions) between individuals.378 Other types of land were also objects of sale and dispute. The most common terms at Djeme—and the only ones in this dossier—were вІ•вІЃП© and вІ-вІ±вІЈвІЏвІ™вІЃ(П‡ПЋПЃО·ОјО±), which may be Coptic and Greek synonyms. Other categories appear, but their exact purpose and any distinctions between them are not clear. Some surely refer to cultivable fields, in which case they were located outside the confines of the old enclosure wall.379

5.2. Isolated Cases Some texts document the activities of people who do not occur elsewhere in this dossier but are known from other Theban texts, while some concern people that occur in no other text. Only for P.KRU 33, a small sliver from the end of a deed of sale, and P.Lond.Copt. I 444/1, the first three lines of a legal document, can nothing be said. Indeed, so little survives of the latter that even the document type is unknown. Apart from donations of children, all the documents that Aristophanes wrote except for P.KRU 27 and O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 concern land or houses (or parts thereof). P.KRU 27 is the only Theban record of the sale of a loom (вІ›вІЏвІ§).380 Ananias son of Pses and Tmanna sells the loom, which he received Page 129 →from his mother, to Petros son of Zacharias, for one holokottinos, a large amount of money given property prices in Djeme (see table 4.1; as the size of these properties is not provided, comparison between their relative values is difficult). This high value reflects the loom as a source of income, with weaving being an important occupation, even if textual evidence for it in the village is limited.381 The loom is situated within the courtyard of Tsacho, daughter of Blind Jacob, the location of which is given approximately rather than in relation to the four cardinal points: the courtyard is west of Rempshumare Street,382 in the area west of the house of Zacharias son of Pses, probably Ananias’ brother. Ananias occurs as the taxpayer in P.Schutzbriefe 61.4, an undated combined tax receipt and pass for safe conduct, which Aristophanes did not write. Petros son of Zacharias, the purchaser, may be identified as the owner of property neighboring the courtyard and sold in P.KRU 6.17, but both names are common, so this identification cannot be confirmed. Neither party is involved in any other transaction surviving from the village. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 is a receipt for four tremises, in the form of an oath, for a dress (П©вІџвІ“М€вІ§вІ‰ вІ›вІҐП©вІ“вІ™вІ‰), written from Trempou to Trakote: “By this holy topos,383 which my soul and I are in: As for the dress that I received from you, I have given you four tremises for it. This is the oath that Trempou swore for Trakote.” Trakote here is presumably the weaver of the garment in question, which is notable for its high price. Unfortunately, its designation is very general and provides no reason why. A small number of such oaths exist from Djeme (O.Medin.HabuCopt. 89–95), all of which stress that no deceit has occurred in financial or property transactions of different natures. Page 130 →Neither woman in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 is given a patronymic, but it may be possible to identify both of them with women bearing the same names in other texts. The only other occurrence of the name Trakote is in P.KRU 14 (which Aristophanes wrote), in which Trakote daughter of Cyriacus is named as the original owner of the property in question. The two women may be the same person, but this cannot be conclusively stated. A Trempou wife of Stephanos is named as the previous owner of a house in P.KRU 70.30–34 (dated 750). A Trempou without further identifiers appears as a landowner in O.Vind.Copt. 42.7, a contract to sow land, between

Eustathios, a deacon, and Georgios son of Onnophrios. The same Georgios is granted permission to sow the land of Trempou (possibly the daughter of Aaron) and Sakou in O.CrumST 38. These two documents were written on the same day, and it is highly likely that the two landowning women are the same person, with Georgios sowing both her land and that neighboring hers. Whether this Trempou can be identified with that in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 or the wife of Stephanos cannot be determined. P.KRU 17 records the transfer of property as a marriage gift (вІҐвІ-вІЃвІ§), through the means of a deed of sale. Damage suffered by the papyrus obscures many of the salient facts: only the first name of the second party, Nonne, survives in the opening formulary, while the name of the first party, Shenoute son of Phoibammon, is reconstructed from his signature at the end. This identification is correct, as “my late father Phoibammon” is referred to in the main fragments (lines 24, 30). On the smallest fragment, “the daughter of Petros” is mentioned (line 15), which may provide the patronymic of Nonne. A Nonne without patronymic is the sender of a letter concerning cattle, O.Medin.HabuCopt. 143, which, because of the rarity of the name, could refer to the same person. Shenoute son of Phoibammon is attested as a property owner in three other deeds of sale: P.KRU 2, 3, and 16. He is the second party (i.e., the purchaser) in P.KRU 16, in which he bought the house of Rachel from her husband, Shenetom son of Joseph, the first party. P.KRU 2 and 3 concern the same two plots of land. In the description of the plot’s boundaries in both instances, Shenoute is listed as the owner of the house to the south of it (he did not purchase the plot during the interval between the original sale in P.KRU 3 and the later one recorded in P.KRU 2). In the smallest fragment of P.KRU 17, the name Aaron is preserved below the designation “daughter of Petros.” If this is Aaron son of Shenoute (see section 5.3), the purchaser in P.KRU 2, it is possible that the house presented as the dowry is the same house mentioned there and in P.KRU 3.384 The event recordedPage 131 → in P.KRU 17 would then be later than the sale in P.KRU 2, which dates to Paope 10, indiction year 3, when Comes son of Chael was dioiketes, that is, after 7 October 749, when Aaron bought the property. This raises the date of P.KRU 17 but does not contradict the other dating criteria for this text (see table 2.2). The connection between this Aaron (son of Shenoute) and Shenoute (son of Phoibammon) may indicate a familial relationship between them, in which case P.KRU 17 may be considered part of Aaron’s archive.385 P.KRU 43, a settlement of dispute concerning two properties, has also suffered considerable damage. Lost are the opening sections, including the introduction of the first party and part of the introduction of the second party, as well as the statement of consent from the end of the document. Some particulars cannot be reconstructed. The first party, the children of Cosma (lines 11–12, 20–21), must have comprised men and women. Both properties in question are divided along gendered lines (as is also the case with P.KRU 39 and 40; see section 5.6); in each instance, the men received two shares, and the women received one.386 The second party, as far as the texts allows its reconstruction, comprised only women: Rebecca(?), Tswai and Anna, daughters of Makarios(?) and Catherine, with Victorine daughter of Chael.387 Page 132 →[I write to R]ebecca, Tswai and Anna, the daughters of [В .В .В .В ]rios, their mother being the late Catherine, and Victorine daughter of Chael, from this same castrum Djeme, the nome of this [same] city [Ermont].В .В .В . You have received these shares in the house that the great bench is near, in the street of the children of Conon. You acquired the entire internal courtyard[?] of that house and half the storage area at the front; the entrance room, water container, and stairs are communal. Two shares are allocated to the men and the third to the women. Further, you received your shares in the house in the dry-land[?], namely, you received the veranda in the western area, above the storeroom off the entrance room, and the entire grain storage area in the east, and the cellar underneath the internal courtyard[?]; the entrance room, stairs, and water container are communal. It is two to the men among them and one to the women. (P.KRU 43.3–7, 24–38) These women became the co-owners of the shares defined in the contract. Although the text here survives intact, it includes the most obscure terms found in any document that Aristophanes wrote: even when complete, these texts

are not always easy to understand. It is unclear what is signified by вІ›вІ‰вІ“вІ™вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ вІ‰вІ§П©вІ› вІЎвІЏвІ“М€ вІ‰вІ§вІ‰вІЈвІ‰вІ§вІ›вІџП-вІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐвІ‰ П©вІ“вІ±вІ±ПҐ “these shares in the house that the great bench388 is near” (lines 24–25). Perhaps the bench refers to an architectural feature of the original temple of Rameses III,389 but this term is not the only problematic one. The women received the entire вІЎвІ‰вІЈвІ‰вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ§вІ›, an obscure compound derived from вІЎвІ‰вІЈ- “house” (from ancient Egyptian pr, rather than standard Coptic вІЏвІ“)390 and вІ‰вІ“вІ§вІ› “land.” Can this be understood as an internal courtyard in the house? The texts refer to courtyards as вІЃвІ›П©, but these courtyards are always described as being Page 133 →next to houses or in the center of a cluster of buildings.391 The archaeological record of the village does not show houses with internal courtyards, but the record is partial and does not exclude their existence. Perhaps this is the Coptic equivalent of the Greek О±бјґОёПЃО№ОїОЅ, a central room (from which others were entered) that extended from the ground floor to the roof and could also be the location of storerooms.392 This would make sense of the following reference to the storeroom (П«вІЏвІЈвІ‰) that is in front—or perhaps at the front—of this room.393 The second house is associated with another otherwise unattested term, вІҐвІ‰ПЇвІ±П©вІ•вІ‰вІ—вІ™, referencing a category of land and derived from вІҐвІ±вІ§ “measure of land”394 + вІ‰вІ“вІ±П©вІ‰ “land” + П-(вІ‰)вІ—вІ™ “dry twigs, sticks.”395 Is this a reference to the type of land on which the house was built? This house also has an internal courtyard (if the above understanding of вІЎвІ‰вІЈвІ‰вІ“вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІ›, misspelled in line 32, is correct ), below which is a cellar (вІ•вІЃвІ§вІЃвІ…вІЃвІ“вІџвІ›) that the women received. They also received two different types of storage space, a magazine (вІЃвІЎвІџвІ‘вІЏвІ•вІЏ, бјЂПЂОїОёО®ОєО·),396 a storage area (П«вІЏвІЈвІ‰), and a veranda (see section 5.1). In sum, Rebecca, Tswai, Anna, and Victorine almost exclusively inherit storage and open spaces in these two houses. Even when documents are complete, small areas of damage have a tendency to destroy the most important facts. P.KRU 41 records a settlement between family members. Epiphanius son of Pcher, the first party, refers to the second party, Swai son of Severos, as his legitimate brother, вІЎвІЃвІҐвІџвІ› вІ›вІ…вІ›вІЏвІҐвІ“вІџвІҐ (line 17), and subsequently refers to the inheritance of “our late father Pcher.” How can Swai be both the son of Severos and the son of Pcher? There are two options. The first is that Epiphanius and Swai are half brothers, with the same Page 134 →mother, who is unnamed in the text.397 The second is that they are uncle (Epiphanius) and nephew (Swai), with Severos being Epiphanius’ brother. Due to the paucity of kinship terms in Egyptian, there are no separate terms to mark this distinction. Only Swai is attested in other documents. In P.KRU 60, he acts together with his brother Cosma in the settlement over a dispute concerning an earlier agreement. P.KRU 41 is complete apart from a couple of lines where the text is effaced and unreadable, resulting in the loss of two of the most important pieces of information. Swai received the “new house,” which is further qualified in the first area of damage to the text (lines 41–42); only the word for “stairs” survives. The boundaries of this house suggest that it was prime real estate, as it was bordered by streets to the north and east, land to the south (вІ-вІ±вІЈвІЏвІ™вІЃ), and only one house on the east, that of the siblings of Pcher; that is, the house would not have been as dark and enclosed as many homes in the town. The introduction of the second property contains the second area of damage (line 54), which originally contained the type of property in question. This was situated in the neighborhood of the house of Pators, which was to be entered through an arch on the street.398 No other boundaries are given. There is one other occurrence of the name Pators, as a patronymic,399 but that does not provide any further information about this second property. The ordering of the formulaic elements of this document helps to reconstruct the situation. You received the new house [В .В .В .В ] the stairs [В .В .В .В ] of Swai (son) of Philotheos, and you will become its owner, in its entirety, with everything that belongs to it.В .В .В . Further, you also received [В .В .В .В ] in the vicinity of the house of Pators, and you enter it from the first arch on the street toward it, according to its surrounding boundaries. These are the shares that you received, you,

Swai the son of Severos, in the house and land.В .В .В . Now, as for you, the abovementioned, you will enter, take control of, and become owner of half the courtyard of the dux, which is from the stone tower, the entire half share, according to the above stipulated agreement.” (P.KRU 41.41–46, 54–67) Page 135 →Following the mention of the first property, Aristophanes writes an abridged version of the clause on rights of ownership (not cited above), stipulating the legal rights of the new owner over the house. There is then the description of the second property, after which is written the standard clause on rights of ownership. However, only one property is mentioned here, a half share of the courtyard of the dux, located next to a stone tower. Lost on line 54 are approximately ten letters, which could be reconstructed as follows: вІЃвІ•вІ§вІЃП©вІџ [вІ™вІЎвІЃвІ›П© вІ™вІЎвІ‡вІџвІ©вІќ] “you received [the courtyard of the dux].” If the trace of a curved descending stroke at the end of the line is part of вІќ, the arch on the street may be part of the stone tower (вІ§вІџвІ©вІџвІџвІ™ вІЎвІ‰ вІ›вІ±вІ›вІ‰) mentioned in lines 64–65. The significance of the reference to the dux (for which see the discussion of P.KRU 10 in chapter 4.5) is unclear, but the stone tower may be the fortified gatehouse, the migdol, of the original temple; this identification would allow the property to be located in the eastern side of the village. These five documents—one receipt (O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88), two sales (P.KRU 17 and 27), and two settlements (P.KRU 41 and 43)—are the only texts in Aristophanes’ dossier that do not form part of larger archives. None of the main parties appear elsewhere in texts that Aristophanes wrote (unless P.KRU 17 can be connected with Aaron son of Shenoute; Trakote in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 is discounted, as the link with P.KRU 14 is tenuous).400 The remaining twelve texts (fourteen if those in which Aristophanes acts as witness are included) are connected to at least one other document in the dossier, and all these instances are parts of larger family archives that include texts written by other scribes.

5.3. Aaron Son of Shenoute Nine sale documents and a testament comprise the archive of Aaron son of Shenoute, the most prolific property buyer in the records from Djeme. The deeds involve a range of property types: P.KRU 1 and 2 are for land (вІ•вІЃП©); P.KRU 4 and 5, for a different land category (вІ-вІ±вІЈвІЏвІ™вІЃ); P.KRU 6, for a courtyard (вІЃвІ›П©); P.KRU 12 and 13, for parts of houses (two houses in each document); and P.KRU 14 and 15, for entire houses. Aristophanes wrote two of these sales, P.KRU 14 and 15, which are the last documents that he wrote in full. Aaron’s testament, Page 136 →P.KRU 72, is mostly lost, with only the final clauses and witness statements surviving. These are sufficient to identify Aaron as the owner of the testament, but no information concerning his property holdings is preserved. Louis Boulard argued that these texts belonged to not one but up to four different Aarons, based on the documents’ chronology and the writing of his matronymic: (1) P.KRU 12 and 13 (733); (2) P.KRU 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (748–756); (3) P.KRU 14, Shenoute son of Elizabeth (756); (4) P.KRU 15, Shenoute son of Talek (756).401 There is no reason why the chronology, with the texts spanning twenty-three years, should be a problem. The inconsistency in the matronymic could be because his mother was known by two names, for which there is precedent elsewhere at Djeme, including in Aristophanes’ dossier (see section 5.4). If the same phenomenon was at practice here, Aaron’s mother was known by names with origins in Hebrew (Elizabeth) and Egyptian (Talek402).403 That Aristophanes used each name on separate occasions may be accounted for by his age when these texts were written (P.KRU 15 is riddled with errors, and certain information is omitted, as discussed in chapter 3.2), or perhaps a different name was stated in each instance. While there may have been two Aarons, one represented by P.KRU 12 and 13 and the other by nine documents written after 748, including P.KRU 14 and 15 (and so the Aaron of interest here), there certainly were not four Aarons. Other than Aaron, there are no unifying factors between these documents.404 The first party in P.KRU 14, Papas son of Theodore, acquired his property through inheritance, and the previous history of the property is listed, but

none of the parties appear elsewhere, and there is no other reference to this house. The history of the property sold by Damianos son of Cosma to Aaron in P.KRU 15 is more unusual. Damianos originally donated the house to the topos of Apa Victor,405 also in Djeme, for the health of the soul of Pachom son of Georgios, who is otherwise unattested: “the entire house in Rempshoumare Street, which he [i.e., Pachom] donated to the prize-bearing, victory-bringing, crown-bearing,Page 137 → triumphant, and glorious martyr, the holy Apa Victor of the castrum Djeme, for the health of his soul—Pachom (son) of Georgios—so that he can truly be pitied before God, who is removed from everyone” (lines 31–38). How Damianos was able to sell this building is not stated. Most likely, he represented the topos in some capacity and sold the house on its behalf. He bore no title that connects him to the topos, either here or in P.KRU 22.66–67, where he acted as witness.406 The family of Germanos had strong connections with the topos of Apa Patermoute, but only one member, Shenoute, had any ecclesiastical connection with it, although this is not always mentioned (see section 5.6). It is possible that Damianos had a similar relationship with the topos of Apa Victor.

5.4. Abessa and Takoum: The Family of Abigaia The internal bickering between three generations of the family of Abigaia is represented in Aristophanes’ dossier. These constitute the active generations in this family, as Abigaia and her husband, Zacharias, are mentioned only in the names of their children.407 Abigaia had two daughters, Abessa and Takoum, whose dispute is recorded in P.KRU 25 and 47 and in P.KRU 45 and 46, both of which were written by Johannake and witnessed by Aristophanes. The next generation—the children of Abessa, namely, Thekla and Arsenios (also known as Tsherkah and Senout)408—is represented in the dossier by P.KRU 48 and elsewhere in P.KRU 50 (witnessed by Aristophanes), 28, and 56. Finally, the youngest generation is represented by Tagape and Martha, daughters of Thekla, who respectively occur in P.KRU 26 and 24, the second of which is not connected with Aristophanes. Not all of these documents involved Aristophanes, and because Arthur Schiller and Terry Wilfong have both provided overviews of all these texts,409 I here discuss only the texts written by Aristophanes. P.KRU 25, 45, 46, and 47 record the resolution of a problem over property Page 138 →that Abessa and Takoum inherited from their father, Zacharias.410 The beginning of P.KRU 25 is lost, and P.KRU 47 has suffered damage throughout, but the situation can be completely reconstructed. Abessa sold the house, its associated buildings, and its courtyard to Daniel, without consulting Takoum. The dissolution of this sale is recorded in P.KRU 25 and 47. The original sale price was twelve holokottinoi (P.KRU 25.13), but Abessa had to repay almost one holokottinos more as a penalty for reneging on the original sale.411 In this current time, this 6th year, I [i.e., Daniel] bought the house of your late father Zacharias and the courtyard, which are in the vicinity of the house of the children of Constantine, and the workroom of Antonios son of Paulos, having paid twelve holokottinoi of pure gold to you for them. You subsequently sought action against me before the most esteemed lord КїAmr, representative of our lord, the most notable amir, about half of the house, from the cellar to the rear,412 and half of the courtyard. After, then, having undertaken the required processes together, the deputy413 (of) the most esteemed lord amir commanded and I gave the rear half of the house to you, Abessa, and half of the courtyard beside it. Now, I acknowledge that seven holokottinoi less one tremis have come to me from you, Abessa, for the rear half of the house and half of the courtyard. (P.KRU 25.9–24) Page 139 →In P.KRU 47, Daniel returned half the property to Takoum for six holokottinoi, presumably money that she received from her sister, if Abessa was the one to blame for the situation (P.KRU 47.18–19: “Here is half the price of the house and the courtyard; it has come to me from [you, Takoum]”). Alternatively, it may be that the sisters sold the house together but that Abessa changed her mind, decided to cancel the sale, and so paid the fine. Whatever the truth of the situation, matters did not end here, and the sisters, unhappy with the divisions resulting from the return of the property by Daniel, sought arbitration from the village officials, the “great men,” to redivide it between them. This resulted in the writing of P.KRU 45 and 46, both of which

Aristophanes signed as witness. We hear nothing further of the two sisters, who presumably were satisfied with this outcome. At the same time that the two sisters were squabbling, Abessa’s children—Thekla and Arsenios—were simultaneously working together and against each other in a series of issues of their own. Most of their documents record them working together, as they do in P.KRU 48, but in P.KRU 56 (dated to the mid-730s and possibly the earliest document in this archive),414 Arsenios sued Thekla for four tremises, although he ultimately only received one tremis and two carats (P.KRU 56.15–16). The beginning of P.KRU 48 is lost, but the respective parties are clear, albeit without patronymics in the case of the members of the first party. This is a settlement between Paulos, Marcus, Leontios, Ananias, Charis, and Nemphe, on one hand, and Thekla and Arsenios, on the other.415 Thekla and Arsenios received shares in a house, but exactly which parts of the house they got are unknown, as the surviving manuscript starts with the description of the property in relation to the four cardinal points. One of the rooms that they acquired impinged that of Paulos and company, who consequently received, between them, four tremises as compensation for this inconvenience. Page 140 →They [i.e., Thekla and Arsenios] acquired the room in [В .В .В .В ] that is off the entrance room of the house of Pyrgos and the other room above it. However, [as we(?)] made available416 the door of the room off the entrance room onto the stairs, you have given another four tremises for the house that is in Culol Street and half the land next to the house of Antonios (son) of Samuel. That is, two tremises to me, Leontios and my siblings, one tremis to Paulos, and one tremis to Markos. (P.KRU 48.4–12) Thekla married twice, marrying Eutychios first and then Zenon, and had a daughter with each man—Tagape with Eutychios and Martha with Zenon. Martha is not mentioned in this dossier, but P.KRU 26 records the sale between Zenon and Tagape of a room in a house in which both had inherited a room. This resolution of property division concerns property from Thekla’s first husband, Eutychios, father of Tagape. She inherited a room on the ground floor in his house and paid Zenon two tremises for a room under the stairs that he received.417 Why Zenon would receive property in the house of his wife’s deceased husband cannot be determined in light of what information we have for the history of this family. The beginning of the text is once again damaged, affecting one important point in lines 2–4, which the editio princeps transcribed as вІ‰вІ§вІѓвІ‰ вІЎвІҐвІ›вІЃвІ© вІ›[ В± 10 ]вІ› вІ™вІЎвІЏвІ“ вІ›вІ›вІҐ[..] вІ›вІЃвІ›вІ§вІ±вІ›вІ“вІџвІҐ вІ›вІЃвІ“ вІ›вІ§вІЃвІ©вІ‰вІ“ вІ‰П«вІ±вІ› П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ›[вІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ)] вІ›вІ‰вІ“вІ±вІ§ вІЎвІ‰ПЈ..вІҐ “about the two [roomsВ .В .В .] of the house of [В .В .В .В ] of Antonios, which we inherited from our [late] father Pesh..s.” This reading introduces an individual that is not otherwise known—Pesh..s. However, the reading of the name can be corrected to вІ‰вІ§вІ©вІ-вІ“[вІџ]вІҐ for вІ‰вІ©вІ§вІ©вІ-вІ“вІџвІҐ(as in line 7) with a fair level of certainty. The use of “our” by individuals who were not siblings also occurs in P.KRU 41 (see section 5.2). This may be a deferential use of the term, unless Zenon is to be understood as related to Eutychios in a different capacity (in which case Thekla married two men from the same family).418 Page 141 →

5.5. Daniel Son of Pachom The most singular documents in Aristophanes’ dossier involve Daniel son of Pachom: P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, in which he is the taxpayer, and P.KRU 52, which suggests a scandalous affair. Additionally, P.KRU 53 mentions his son (Christodoros son of Daniel, unless this is a false prosopographic connection), and Aristophanes was witness to P.KRU 116. Daniel’s family has received no direct attention in studies on the village (rare as they are), being mentioned only in passing.419 The texts connected with him, including those not written by Aristophanes, paint him as a wealthy man. He owned at least two properties, a house that he bequeathed to his son Christodoros (P.KRU 71) and another that he gave to his daughter Mariham and her husband, Papnoute, in exchange for their care for him in his old age (P.KRU 116), unless they failed in their care, in which case he

would resume ownership of the property. In his testament, P.KRU 71, Daniel noted that he built the house to the south of that which he bequeathed to his son, and that house to the south is presumably the one in which Mariham lived.420 Daniel was able to loan money to various individuals, including people who lived outside Djeme. In P.KRU 62, he loaned half a holokottinos to Paulos son of Johannes from Petale in the Hermonthite nome, for his need, and P.KRU 61 may record a loan from Daniel to multiple men, although the damage there makes the exact details unclear.421 This seeming wealth makes the events of P.KRU 52 all the more outrageous. Petros son of Comes sued Daniel and Tanope daughter of Abraham (and wife of Solomon, the same woman who is the first party in P.KRU 8) before both the amir Sulayman and the local authorities, the dioiketes Chael and Demetrios. Arbitration before these high authorities was sought because of the severity of the matter: Daniel and Tanope together stole property from the house of Petros to the value of ten and two-thirds holokottinoi.422 I sued you before the [most esteemed] lord Sulayman, [the] most illustrious amir, about the items that you stole from [our house]. We have provided, togetherPage 142 → with you, the dioiketes Demetrios and Chael, so that they can demand from you all the stolen goods that you took from our house stealthily. You, then, Daniel and Tanope, and some officials of the castrum, came with us. I was asked on your behalf, because you were unable to pay and return the stolen goods to us, which you stole from our house, whereupon we released423 you from the ten holokottinoi and two tremises. Now, we agree that we have no issue against you, ever, Daniel and Tanope, about all the stolen goods that you took from our house, because we have reached an agreement with you concerning all the stolen goods. (P.KRU 52.5–18) The motivations for this theft are not stated, but Tanope may have been pivotal in the events. This was not Tanope’s first time (or her last, depending on the exact chronology of the texts) to be involved in arbitration before the amir. P.KRU 8 records Sulayman’s interjection in the sale of the courtyard of Tanope’s husband, Solomon, after its purchasers did not pay the full amount and owed her and her children a further five tremises. If we infer that Tanope was facing hard times, the need to sell property and seek such a high authority in securing payment may be part of the same problem recorded in P.KRU 52. Her husband, Solomon, is not noted as being deceased, but this is a distinct possibility, and perhaps his death left her destitute and seeking relief for her and her family in any possible way. Daniel may have become involved as Tanope’s representative or may have supported her during her moment of desperation, providing help to a widow424 (P.KRU 61 and 62 demonstrate that he was able to provide funds for others in need). There is no indication of a relationship between Tanope and Daniel, but it may not have been considered necessary to include this information (i.e., a second marriage for Tanope; Daniel’s testament does not refer to his wife). In this light, Daniel himself was not being sued but was named as first party with Tanope as he acted on her behalf. Therefore, despite his apparent wealth (as indicated by his property holdings), the case was dismissed because Tanope, not Daniel, was unable to repay what she had taken. This understanding preserves the impression of DanielPage 143 → as a wealthy and benevolent member of the community, as is witnessed in the rest of his archive.

5.6. The Family of Germanos The Djeme family attested best—more so than the better-known family of Elizabeth,425 in terms of the volume of documentation—is the so-called family of Germanos. He himself plays no active role in the documentary record, having predeceased all the texts that form this family archive, but he is named in most of the documents, as part of the patronym of his children.426 Ten papyrus documents and one ostracon comprise this archive: P.KRU 10, 20, 21, 39, 40, 58, 66, 70, 76, and 115 and O.Crum 147. Aristophanes wrote four of the papyri (P.KRU 10, 39, 40, and 58) and the ostracon. The deed of sale P.KRU 10—between the children of Psate (the first party) and the sons of Germanos (the second party), namely, Stephanos, Shenoute, and Hemai—concerns the most expensive plot of land at Djeme, at seven and one-third holokottinoi (it is the second most expensive property recorded in the village; see table

5.1).427 This value is derived from its location next to the topos of Apa Patermoute, with which the family of Germanos had a long history; it is what led to the long legal process over its ownership between these two families.428 In these passed times, we sold to you429 the entire plot east of the holy topos of the holy Apa Patermoute in the castrum Djeme, to Germanos, your late father, [you] the aforementioned Shenoute, Hemai, and Stephanos. He gave seven holokottinoi [and one tremis] for that entire plot. We drew up a deed of sale, secure and [В .В .В .В ] your father, and he became owner of that entire plot, according to the authority of the sale that we had drawn up [with him]. Page 144 →After a considerable time, we went to Antinoopolis and approached our lord, the most notable dux, about that entire plot. He, our lord [the du]x, ordered that we give this 7 1/3 nomisma to Germanos, your late father, and regain our land. After we had come south and sued your late father Germanos, and after having undertaken the sufficient processes with your father concerning that entire plot, the authority of the castrum discovered that half share of land belonged to Pisenthios the son of Paulos, according to the authority of the original sale, which he, Pisenthios (son) of Paulos, made clear to them. Afterward, we gave three holokottinoi and two tremises to Pisenthios, the son of Paulos, from the 7 1 /3, for the half share of land, he having sold the (other) half of the land to you, the aforementioned Shenoute, Hemai, and Stephanos. We ourselves, Zacharias, Ephriam, Sophia, and Takoum, the children of the late Psate, were not able to supply and give the other 3 2/3 nomisma to you. We wanted to sell our half share to you, who we have already mentioned above. (P.KRU 10.11–28) The children of Psate sold the land to Germanos but then attempted to sue to regain it. Germanos passed away sometime before this happened, leaving his sons as his representatives. It is possible that Germanos’ death was the catalyst for the events recorded, with the children of Psate attempting to regain the land rather than let it be inherited by his heirs (in which case the document concerns a dispute over inheritance). However, no reasons for these events are provided, and this is simply one option. After arbitration in front of, first, the Arab pagarch in Antinoopolis430 (who determined in favor of the first party) and, subsequently, the local village officials, it is discovered that the land had been split into two parcels: the sons of Germanos owned one half, and Pisenthios son of Paulos, their cousin, owned the second. Pisenthios was paid half the value of the land, but by this point, the first party no longer had the funds to buy back the second half, in the possession of Germanos’ sons. The result is the deed of sale in question, in which the children of Psate sell Pisenthios’ half to Shenoute, Stephanos, and Hemai, thereby reunifying the plot.431 The plot of land does not Page 145 →reoccur in Aristophanes’ dossier, but P.KRU 21 (written by Johannes son of Lazarus) is the sale of part of a house that was built on it soon afterward. Aristophanes also wrote P.KRU 39 and 40, which involve Germanos’ children. These are parallel texts of the same inheritance dispute, concerning a house that belonged to Germanos. P.KRU 39 and 40 must not represent the entirety of Germanos’ estate but instead record a settlement concerning one specific component. The house was divided into three parts, as is noted in the text, with two for male members of the family and one for female members (reminiscent of the situation recorded between the parties in P.KRU 43, discussed above). P.KRU 39 records the parts of the house that Stephanos received, P.KRU 40 that which Shenoute received. The third share, presumably inherited by their surviving sister, Victorine,432 is not recorded in a further, parallel papyrus document but is probably the share written on an ostracon, O.Crum 147. This ostracon is labeled “House of Germanos” (line 1: Оїбј¶Оє(ОїП‚) О“ОµПЃОјО±[ОЅО№ОєОїбї¦]), and its division does not match that in either of the papyri.433 It is possible that Victorine could not afford to have a full document written or that she did not need one. The portion acquired by Stephanos was subsequently sold to Shenoute’s son, Pisenthios, in P.KRU 20 (written by Marcus son of Anastasius).434 The time span between P.KRU 10 and P.KRU 39 and 40 is significant. The documents are separated by twelve years, yet the settlements concern property inherited from Germanos, who was already dead by the time of the

earlier sale. The dispute did not occur immediately following his death, so a different event was the trigger for these actions. Here, the term dispute is too severe. The family members coexisted happily after their father’s death, buying and selling property together, and a heated incident is unlikely to have occurred at this later date. There is no mention of involvement by the amir, only village officials headed by the dioiketes (here Comes), as was usual in property settlements in Djeme. The desire of Stephanos to sell his share—or the desire of Pisenthios to Page 146 →buy it—necessitated clarifying who owned what in the house. Up until that point, they had lived together without the need for such sharp distinctions.435 This is not like the situation between Abessa and Takoum, with their multiple documents and dissatisfactions. The final text by Aristophanes in this archive is P.KRU 58, between Isaac son of Abraham (the first party) and an unknown second party (the beginning of the document is lost). Isaac was married to Tsone, daughter of Germanos, with whom he had a son, Sanagape, who is named among the first party in P.KRU 39 and 40. In this document, Isaac records a loan, for forty days, of two holokottinoi (or a mortgage: the document does not explicitly state that the money is used to purchase Isaac’s house, but his “new house” is used as collateral for the loan). An oath is written on the verso, in which Isaac’s son Petros refers to a further four holokottinoi advanced by the priest Shenoute. Shenoute son of Germanos does not appear with a title in any of the surviving documentation, but he may have served as priest in the church of Apa Patermoute, with which he had strong connections (he received a share in it in P.KRU 66/76, the testament of his paternal grandmother, Susanna). It appears that Isaac was unable to repay this loan, with the matter being resolved in P.KRU 115, a security document featuring Shenoute as the second party and concerning Isaac and Sanagape.436

5.7. Monasteries Aristophanes wrote a small number of documents that involve the two principal monasteries in western Thebes: the monastery of Apa Phoibammon and the monastery of Apa Paul. There is no indication that he worked for either monastery at any point in his career or had any real association with them. The monastery of Apa Phoibammon was the second party in P.KRU 87, 95+101, and 103, while P.CLT 3 concerns three monks from the monastery of Apa Paul. As discussed in chapter 4.5, P.CLT 3 is a letter addressed from officials of the village, Chael and Johannes, to an unnamed Arab official, referred to only as “the most illustrious amir” (line 2; the address on lines 15–16 on the verso contains only a great string of epithets). Even though the amir is not named, it is Page 147 →likely that this is Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh, from whose office P.Bal. 130 Appendix A was issued and who was responsible for taxation and related issues in the Theban region. The monastery is referred to in connection with the three monks for whom the letter was written—ⲛⲉⲓⲙⲟⲛⲟвІ-вІџвІҐвІ™вІЎвІ•вІџвІ©вІ—вІ±вІ— вІ›вІЃвІЎвІЃ вІЎвІЃвІ©вІ—вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ§вІџвІџвІ© вІ›П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ “these monks of the Culol of Apa Paul of the mount of Djeme” (P.CLT 3.1–2)—and none of its officials are mentioned.437 At no point did Aristophanes state that he was writing at the behest of anybody from the monastery. Table 5.1. Property prices in Aristophanes’ dossier Text

Property Value A P.KRU courtyard 2 1/6 holokottinoi 8 (вІЃвІ›П©) Land (вІ•вІЃП©) located P.KRU next to the 7 1/3 holokottinoi 10 topos of Apa Patermoute

A one-third P.KRU share of 2 holokottinoi 11 land (вІ•вІЃП©) P.KRU A house 6 holokottinoi 14 P.KRU A house 15 P.KRU A house 17 Half of a property bundle, comprising half a house and P.KRU half a 25 courtyard (the other half being the object of the settlement P.KRU 47) The room P.KRU under the 26 stairs P.KRU Loom 27 P.KRU Lost 33

4 holokottinoi Not stated

Total for the property: 12 holokottinoi (half the property sold for 6 holokottinoi plus a fine of 2/3 holokottinos)

2/3 holokottinos 1 holokottinos Lost

The three monks in question are not named until the end of the text, where a description of each is provided. The following situation can be reconstructed: the monks required permission from the amir to travel north to the Fayum (the purpose of the journey is not stated),438 but the superiors of the monastery were not able to write this letter themselves or were not officially permitted to do so on their own behalf; instead, the monks—Joseph, Theodoros, and Marcus—had to travel to the village and request its officials to petition the amir for them; Aristophanes was then asked to produce the letter. This situation raises two important points: the monastery, being unable to write to the amir directly, may have fallen under the administration of the village for taxation purposes; and Aristophanes was the most appropriate scribe in the village to write the letter, because of his involvement with taxation and the administrative hierarchyPage 148 → involved in this process. As such, this text is classified as part of his work as an administrative scribe and does not connect him directly with the monastery. In the child donation documents,439 P.KRU 87 and 95+101, Cyriacus son of Demetrios is the second party, representing the monastery of Apa Phoibammon. Only part of the address survives in P.KRU 87, and the relevant passages are lost in P.KRU 95+101, but Cyriacus is mentioned in P.KRU 95.8 and 101.2. P.KRU 103 does not preserve any names but can perhaps be attributed to the tenure of Cyriacus as well, if Aristophanes was writing these donations only in the final years of his life, in the 750s. There is no evidence to prove this, and the text may have been written earlier, when Petros was superior of the monastery.440 The monastery is mentioned only as the second party in these texts and does not appear in any other document in

this dossier. Aristophanes wrote these texts for the first party, respectively Georgios son of Marinnos (P.KRU 87) and Mariham daughter of Daniel and wife of Seth (P.KRU 95+101).441 Neither Georgios nor Mariham are attested elsewhere, and though the introduction of the first party is lost in both texts, both are surely from Djeme. The witnesses to P.KRU 87 include a number of well-known men from the village: Isaac son of Constantine, the scribe David son of Psate, and the onetime dioiketes Chael son of Psemo.442 David son of Psate also acted as witness to P.KRU 95, where he stated that he was from Djeme (вІЎвІЈвІ™вІЎвІ•(вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЈвІџвІ›) вІ›П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ “from the castrum Djeme”), as did the witness Pcher son of Enoch. Nohe, who wrote Mariham’s statement of consent, referred to himself only as priest and hegemon. He appears frequently as a witness in Djeme documents and bears his full designation in P.KRU 12.59–61: вІ›вІ±П©вІ‰ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ›вІ“вІ‰вІЈвІ‰вІ™вІ“вІЃвІҐ вІЎвІ‰вІЎвІЈвІ‰вІҐвІѓ(вІ©вІ§вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ) вІЃвІ©вІ± вІЎП©вІЏвІ…вІџвІ©вІ™вІ‰вІ›вІџвІҐ вІ›вІ§вІ‰вІ•вІ•вІ—вІЏвІҐвІ“вІЃ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІ©вІЃвІЃвІѓ вІ›П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ “Nohe son of Jeremias, priest and hegemon of the Holy Church of Djeme” (see, similarly, P.KRU 13.75–77, 106.226–227). These texts were certainly written in the village. Page 149 →Aristophanes did not write the main text of P.KRU 87, only the notation and the witness statements of two men.443 The hand that did write the text does not appear among the witness statements, and the scribe to whom it belonged is unidentifiable. The reason for this situation was Aristophanes’ advanced age at this point. Presumably, the unnamed scribe was also from Djeme, as Aristophanes had no direct dealings with anybody from other villages, but this cannot be determined with certainty. Without access to the original manuscripts of P.KRU 95+101 and the fragmentary P.KRU 103, it cannot be determined whether another scribe (that of P.KRU 87 or a third man) wrote these as well. All these child donations—including P.KRU 103, if it was written when Cyriacus was the superior at Apa Phoibammon—were written in the final years of Aristophanes’ career. They also happen to be among the earliest documents in the surviving corpus of child donations. Only P.KRU 88, by a scribe not otherwise known at Thebes (Job son of Alexandros), is certainly earlier.444 Excluding this early text, child donations start to occur during Cyriacus’ tenure. In addition to those by Aristophanes, these include P.KRU 90 and 98, written by David son of Psate; P.KRU 94, possibly by Daniel son of Theodotos;445 and P.KRU 102, which has no scribal notation. The largest number of donations were written during the 760s and 770s, when Sauros was the superior of the monastery. Godlewski calculated that around 60 percent of the records of child donations (sixteen of twentysix) were written during his tenure.446 This figure is based on P.KRU 95 and 101 being separate texts, and since that is not the case, the statistics need to be slightly adjusted: of the twenty-five deeds, sixteen (64 percent) were written under Sauros, seven (28 percent, including P.KRU 103) under Cyriacus. We know nothing about Job son of Alexandros and little more about Daniel son of Theodoros (the latter was a priest of the church of the Holy Mary in Djeme), but the other early child donation documents were written by professional scribes from Djeme, Aristophanes and David. Even if Aristophanes did not write P.KRU 87, he was present when it was written and may have overseen its writing. His signature is also on P.KRU 95+101, and if he did not write that document himself, he may have overseen its production. It is notable that Page 150 →P.KRU 87 includes no narrative concerning why the child was donated. In its simplest form, as found in other donation deeds, this narrative includes the birth of the child, his subsequent illness, and the promise by the parents (or single parent) to donate the child to the monastery of Apa Phoibammon upon his recovery. Richter categorizes the different versions of this narrative as a full plot, a short plot, and an abridged version of the short plot.447 The relevant sections of P.KRU 95+101 and 103 are lost, but it is unlikely that they included any narrative. If they did, I would expect no more than the abridged version, as found in P.KRU 98, written by David. Of the other early texts, P.KRU 94 has no narrative, and P.KRU 88 has the short plot. Richter includes P.KRU 102 as an example of a short plot in full, but only the sickness of the child and the vow to donate him are preserved, meaning that this may be an example of the abridged version as well. None of these early texts have the long plot, and none include reference to the Old Testament story, from 1 Samuel 1, of the prophetess Anna’s donation of Samuel to the Lord, as found in P.KRU 89, 96, and 100. It is possible that none of the monastery’s scribes at this time were able to produce full documents such as were required for the donation process. Professional village scribes, who were well versed in the necessary

terminology, therefore filled this gap.448 Without a monastic or even an ecclesiastical background, village scribes included neither the longer plot nor biblical parallels.449 The lack of any narrative in P.KRU 87 further distances Aristophanes from the monastery on professional grounds. He had no connection with the scribes there or any other monastery; therefore he did not include phraseology that is found in documents produced by monastic scribes. None of Aristophanes’ donation deeds preserve information concerning the location of the first party, although, as noted above, they almost certainly came from Djeme. According to one scenario that may explain this omission, the parents traveled to the monastery to donate their child, and then the monasteryPage 151 → instructed them to have the appropriate document written. The monastery had no members able to write the deed, so the parents had a village scribe produce it. In an alternative scenario, the parents had a document drawn up locally in Djeme and then took it with them to the monastery. In this case, scribes of the monastery were not approached to produce the deed. This scenario would account for why so many non-Theban scribes and individuals are found among the records of child donations: the records were produced at home, wherever that may have been. Aristophanes did not write for the monasteries. In P.CLT 3, he wrote in his capacity as a taxation scribe for monks that needed to petition the amir, and in the donation deeds, he wrote for the first party, who were villagers and had need of his services. After starting his career working in an administrative capacity, in which context P.CLT 3 is to be understood, he spent most of his time serving the needs of his fellow villagers, including those donating their children to the monastery.

5.8. Scribe and Client Relationships Aristophanes was a professional scribe whose services were available to those able to pay for them.450 It can be inferred, by the amount of property involved and its value (table 5.1), that the people for whom Aristophanes wrote were wealthy individuals. He was not the only scribe working in Djeme, and the villagers had several choices concerning who they might approach to write their Page 152 →documents. Yet some people were repeat clients.451 This is testament to Aristophanes’ ability—he was skilled at writing a wide range of documents—and to his longevity in the village. The prominent role he played in tax collection must have made him a well-known figure throughout the town. Can it be determined, though, why he wrote for certain people and why he wrote for some more than once? One unifying factor among his clients, especially those appearing in multiple texts in the dossier, is wealth, as has already been noted. The property portfolios of Aaron son of Shenoute and the family of Germanos are impressive: Aaron purchased six individual plots of land, shares in four houses, and two entire houses; the Germanos family owned several houses (in addition to that of their father, they owned property inherited from their grandmother Susanna, as recorded in her testament).452 This quantity is matched by the value of the properties involved: the house of Abessa and Takoum, with its associated buildings, is the most expensive of any known property holding at Djeme (twelve holokottinoi); the two houses bought by Aaron are the most expensive attested among the deeds of sale from the village (recording prices of four holokottinoi for the house of Papas and six holokottinoi for the house of Damianos); the plot of land at issue in P.KRU 10 has the highest value of any known in Thebes (seven and one-third holokottinoi). Daniel son of Pachom was not involved in the buying and selling of property (although he owned at least two houses), but his wealth manifested itself in different ways. His personal contribution to the taxes of years 723 and 724 are higher than the known individual annual contributions of any other villager (except for the taxpayer whose name is lost in P.Bal. 130 Appendix B, who paid the same amount),453 and he was able to loan money to those in need in the decades to follow. While some people involved Page 153 →do not appear to be as prosperous—Tanope daughter of Abraham had P.KRU 8 drawn up to protect what assets she had—Aristophanes wrote for those who could afford to pay for his services. Indeed, it is possible that Daniel helped Tanope procure Aristophanes’ services for P.KRU 52, and this help may have extended to her other documents as well.

Business aside, Aristophanes clearly had personal connections with some of the people for whom he wrote. This is most clear with the family of Abigaia, Abessa in particular. Abessa’s property bordered land to the north and east that Aristophanes owned and sold in P.KRU 11. In the settlement between Abessa and Takoum, P.KRU 45, Aristophanes’ house is named among the list of surrounding properties, as lying to the west of the divided property (line 38). His land in P.KRU 11 was also located to the west of Abessa’s, so the land and house must have been next to each other.454 Aristophanes not only wrote for Abessa but was also her neighbor or, even if he did not live in this neighborhood, at least had nearby property concerns. The property to the south of this land belonged to the children of Johannake (вІ›ПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ“вІ±вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЃвІ•вІ“вІџвІҐ, P.KRU 11.29), who may be identified as Aristophanes’ nephews,455 demonstrating further ties between the two families. The purchaser of the land in P.KRU 11, Comes son of Damianos, was also connected with Abessa’s family. In P.KRU 54, he acted as the executor of the will of Tsyros daughter of Takoum.456 Tsyros has not been included in the family tree of Abigaia’s family, but she is surely to be identified as belonging to this family, as the niece of Abessa.457 It is not simply on the basis of her matronymic that she should be attributed to Abigaia’s family. P.KRU 54 is written on the verso of P.KRU 26, the sale between Zenon and Tagape, which also belongs to this archive. Arthur Schiller has argued for Comes as the final holder of the archive, and this is certainly possible.458 Any familial relationship with Tsyros is not mentioned. Comes may have been her husband, but she is not referred to as his wife in P.KRU 54.459 This leads to the question of why Aristophanes decided to Page 154 →sell his share in this land. Perhaps he had his own financial concerns or was simply selling his property in his old age (P.KRU 11 is one of the later texts in the dossier, dated 753). Alternatively, Abessa or Comes may have initiated the sale due to Comes’ relationship with the family and the desire for greater physical proximity between them. While P.KRU 11 was written sixteen years after P.KRU 25 and 47 and a decade after P.KRU 48 and 26, P.KRU 45.38 makes it clear that Aristophanes and Abessa had been neighbors throughout this period. This intimate (or at least neighborly) relationship would explain why Aristophanes wrote four of the ten documents concerning her family and witnessed three more. After the documents that he drew up for Abessa and Takoum proved unsatisfactory, the sisters may have asked for a different scribe to draw up the second pair of settlement contracts, P.KRU 45 and 46. Aristophanes was certainly available at the time, as he witnessed both, but for some reason, he did not write them himself. Instead, his brother Johannake wrote them. Perhaps the sisters asked Aristophanes for an alternative (or more neutral) scribe, and who would be better to recommend than his brother? Reconstructing these social connections requires a certain level of fiction, but fiction that fits the content of the surviving documents. Physical locations seem to have been an influential factor connecting Aristophanes with other clients. The children of Abessa, Thekla and Arsenios, owned property on Culol Street (reference to the street is partial but clear at the beginning of P.KRU 48), which is where the Germanos family also owned property (that divided in P.KRU 39 and 40 and O.Crum 147). Two other properties were located on or near Rempshumare Street: the house sold in P.KRU 15, bought by Aaron son of Shenoute; and the loom in P.KRU 27, located on a street west of it. These streets may have been part of the village neighborhood where Aristophanes lived. Returning to the scribes who wrote for the same families for whom Aristophanes wrote, social considerations are not an obvious factor with other people. For example, the archive of Aaron son of Shenoute includes texts written by Aristophanes and four other scribes: Shenoute son of Shmentsney (P.KRU 1, 2, 4), David son of Psate (P.KRU 5), Swai son of Philotheos (P.KRU 6), and Shmentsney son of Shenoute (P.KRU 12, 13).460 With Aaron’s texts, there appears to Page 155 →be preference for certain scribes, notably Shmentsney and his son Shenoute, who, between them, wrote the majority of his texts. Shmentsney’s death in the 730s made Aaron seek another scribe, but he did not immediately turn to Shenoute, as the text of David son of Psate (P.KRU 5, 24 March 748) predates those that Shenoute wrote (P.KRU 1, 25 February 750; P.KRU 2 July 10.749; P.KRU 4, 19 November 749). However, David did not die and leave Aaron without a scribe, for David outlived Aristophanes (P.KRU 24, which he wrote, is dated to 763)461 but was not employed to write any later document. Five other scribes also contributed to the Germanos family archive: Marcus son of Anastasios (P.KRU 20),462

Johannes son of Lazarus (P.KRU 21), Comes the priest (P.KRU 66, 76), and Swai son of Philotheos (P.KRU 115). Of particular note here is Swai, who also wrote for Aaron and who belonged to the same scribal school of practice as Aristophanes. Aristophanes appears to have had several connections with scribes writing in the 740s to 760s.463 It is possible that, as with Johannake and the sisters Abessa and Takoum, the connections between clients and some scribes may have been initiated by Aristophanes himself. This points to a network of professional scribes within Djeme and not to a category of independent individuals. These jumbled uses of scribes highlight the number of scribes that were available in the village, several of whom were contemporary and able to produce a range of text types. The variety in technical proficiency found among the scribes (Marcus son of Anastasios, the scribe of P.KRU 20, was not as skilled a writer as the other scribes named above, yet he was capable of drawing up a full legal document) indicates that villagers were not particular about the quality of the finished document or that they could only afford a less masterful writer. It is not always possible to see connections between clients and their scribes, and a personal connection need not have existed, yet relationships between Aristophanes and some of the people for whom he wrote are clear and influenced his professional activities.

Page 156 →

Chapter 6 Aristophanes’ Personal and Professional Lives First and foremost, the extant documents written by Aristophanes record events in the everyday lives of residents of Djeme other than himself. No dossier of his personal letters or legal documents survives, if one ever existed. The only surviving document in which he acted as a party—P.KRU 11—became part of a different archive. Yet, even in the absence of such a collection, the documents that he wrote provide insights into his own personal and professional lives. This final chapter draws out the available information to present a picture of Aristophanes’ immediate world, his family, and the development of his career in the last decades of Umayyad rule in Egypt.

6.1. Aristophanes’ Personal Life Chapter 5 provides the social context for many of Aristophanes’ texts, showing the people with whom his occupation brought him into contact, as well as the social circles within which he lived. Brief glimpses into his life are afforded by these documents. In the resolution of the dispute between the sisters Abessa and Takoum, the boundaries of Takoum’s share of the house are designated as follows: south, Heu son of Antonios; north, Abessa herself; east, the house of the children of Andreas; west, the house of Aristophanes son of Johannes (P.KRU 45.35–38). The land that Aristophanes owned and sold in P.KRU 11 is also bordered by that of the sisters. Page 157 →I cede to you [Comes son of Damianos]В .В .В . the third share of land that is in the vicinity of the house of Abessa daughter of the late Zacharias, that share of land that came to me from Taneth and Miriam, the daughters of the late Papnoute son of Pamei, through a legal sale procedure, through a document of sale. Their ancient limits and traditional surrounding appearance: south, the children of the late Johannake and the front door; north, Abessa daughter of Zacharias; east, Abessa daughter of Zacharias; west, the blind street. (P.KRU 11.22–31) It is difficult to reconcile these boundary descriptions visually. The boundaries given refer to the four cardinal points, with only the principal property on each side mentioned. Buildings in the town did not conform to a grid system, though, and the actual layout of the properties would have been less neat.464 Figure 6.1 shows approximate schematics for each property. For the house of Abessa and Takoum, this includes the information from P.KRU 46, as the half that each sister received of that house is recorded. Where no property type is given in the figure, only the name of its owner is provided in the description. The proximity between Aristophanes’ house and land is difficult to determine. During the thirteen years between the writing of each document,465 some properties may have changed hands, changing their boundary designations. Further, the description of Aristophanes’ land makes no mention of his house. Unless he had sold it as well—perhaps to the children of Johannake, discussed further below—the land in question may be elsewhere in this neighborhood. As noted above, the land was in the vicinity of Abessa’s house. One of the properties to the north or east of the land, both of which are simply referred to as “Abessa,” may have been her house, which was the subject of dispute in P.KRU 25, 45, 46, and 47. In this situation, Aristophanes’ house and land are in the same location. Alternatively, if Abessa owned the remaining two-thirds of the land of which Aristophanes owned one-third, these holdings may be described as separate properties (as is the case with the division of the house of Abessa and Takoum), meaning that the boundaries described in P.KRU 11 are mostly land. Aristophanes’ third share has a high value (two holokottinoi), meaning that the entire plot must be large. The value of Abessa and Takoum’s house and adjoining buildings, as listed in P.KRU 25, was twelve holokottinoi. These prices, Page 158 →apart from reflecting the wealth of their owners, may reflect an elite area in which Aristophanes lived. Despite the difficulties involved in reconstructing the realities of the situation, what is

clear is that Aristophanes and Abessa were neighbors in the village for a long time.

Fig. 6.1. The boundaries of Aristophanes’ properties Beyond his property holdings, the record remains silent about the main personal details of Aristophanes’ life. Apart from his father, Johannes, no other family members are ever explicitly mentioned in connection with Aristophanes. Except for P.KRU 11, no document concerning his own personal affairs survives, nor are there any disputes with family members or testaments that would provide this information. His mother’s name is never stated,466 and the identity of his father, Johannes, is a mystery beyond his name. It is tempting to identify this Johannes with the scribe Johannes son of Lazarus. First attested in P.CLT 1 (698), as a witness, that Johannes later wrote five documents (P.CLT 8; Page 159 →P.KRU 21, 35, 42, 51) between 719 and 739, as well as a large body of tax receipts.467 He appears in one text written by Aristophanes, but in name only: his house was used as a location marker in P.KRU 39.468 If he was still alive at that time, 749/50, he could not have been Aristophanes’ father, who was already deceased by 740, as recorded in P.KRU 45 and 46.469 However, his house may have been mentioned in P.KRU 39 because it was especially well known as a landmark in the area, particularly to Aristophanes. The name Johannes is too common to help identify any other figure as Aristophanes’ father.470 On the basis of onomastics, the chronology of the documents, and their social context, it may be possible to identify other male members of Aristophanes’ family. Johannake son of Johannes wrote P.KRU 45 and 46 (mentioned above), which concern the property problems between the sisters Abessa and Takoum. Not only do these sisters play a prominent role in Aristophanes’ own dossier, but Aristophanes acted as witness to each settlement (P.KRU 45.66, 46.44). The two scribes are connected by this family. Additionally, they wrote in the same style, paleographically and in their choice of formulae.471 It is highly likely that these two scribes were brothers, trained at the same time, in the same style, and living in the same social circles. Indeed, it is possible that the property located to the south of Aristophanes’ land, which is designated as belonging to the “children of Johannake,” once belonged to his brother. In the property description in P.KRU 11, Johannake is given the epithet makarios, indicating that he died sometime between 740 and 753. If correct, this identification of Johannake as Aristophanes’ brother may suggest that Aristophanes’ entire family lived in the same neighborhood in the village. No other document is attributed to Johannake, but he did act as amanuensis (for the first party, Patermoute son of Pestinos) in P.KRU 13.70–74, and he served as witness in the same document, dated Hathor 11, indiction year 7 (30 November 733), seven years before the settlement deeds between the sisters. Page 160 →While Johannake shows strong paleographic similarities with Aristophanes,472 he never achieved the latter’s level of fluidity. This limitation, together with the much smaller size of his dossier, suggests that he was not as active as a scribe or did not work primarily as a notarial scribe but was able to produce documents when necessary. Arietta Papaconstantinou has suggested that Aristophanes may have had a younger brother in Polycrates son of Johannes, the two being connected by their high Hellenic names.473 The question of Hellenism and Romanitas among the Theban elite is discussed below, but Papaconstantinou’s suggestion can be dismissed here. Polycrates was the scribe of P.KRU 83, which preserves the final clauses of a child donation document that is addressed to the superior of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon, Apa Sauros. On prosopographic grounds, this document probably dates to the early period of Sauros’ tenure, ca. 770, but a date closer to the end of his period (785) cannot be dismissed.474 Polycrates and Aristophanes were one or two generations apart. In terms of scribal practice, there are almost no shared features between them. Their orthography and use of formulae are different, and while Polycrates did practice bigraphism (his signature is in a separate Greek script), his Coptic hand is of a very different style, an unligatured slanting majuscule that bears closer similarities to texts written in a monastic milieu (fig. 6.2). The proliferation of Theban men called “Johannes” and the number of such Hellenic names do not provide strong enough support for filiation between Polycrates and Aristophanes.475 There is nothing to unite them.

Aristophanes’ son may be Leontios son of Aristophanes, who appears as amanuensis and witness in P.KRU 6.35–37 (fig. 6.3). In this single appearance, Page 161 →Leontios cannot be designated a professional scribe, for his skill level is wanting. At best, he could be termed a novice writer, competent enough to write short statements such as this, but probably nothing more taxing. Certain aspects of his paleography, particularly some of his ligature groups and his almost-Greek letter mu throughout, connect him with Aristophanes and Johannake. Perhaps Leontios’ hand in this statement represents the initial steps in learning a cursive script, beyond which he may never have progressed. Fig. 6.2. Greek signature of Polycrates son of Johannes, P.KRU 83.41 (top), and Polycrates’ Coptic hand, P.KRU 83.12–14 (bottom). Papyrus LXXXII. В© British Library Board. Fig. 6.3. Leontios son of Aristophanes, P.KRU 6.35–38. Or. 4872. В© British Library Board. This document, a deed of sale between Shenoute son of Enoch and Aaron son of Shenoute (who appears in Aristophanes’ last datable documents), was written on Mesore 21, indiction year 11. Its damaged Arabic protocol dates between 720 and 758, and the presence of the dioiketes Comes son of Chael requires a date at the end of this period, thereby dating it to 14 August 758. Aristophanes is given the epithet “the blessed” (i.e., he is deceased), which fits well with the other dates for him: his activity cannot be extended certainly beyond 756, when the deterioration in his skills may be indicative of illness as well as old age. Concerning Aristophanes’ name and other aspects of his writing—primarily Page 162 →his use of Greek and of Greek titles (Flavius) and honorifics—Papaconstantantinou suggests that Aristophanes was part of a profession and society (in early eighth-century southern Egypt) that was “cut-off from the Christian world” and clinging to Byzantium.476 She sees in his professional work that Aristophanes was “taking up for himself his parents’ statement of identity and even transforming it, if one may so put it, into an act of allegiance to the Roman—or Christian—Empire.”477 This interpretation positions Aristophanes and his family within a marked social class in a community that focused on an alternative social order to that of the new rulers of Egypt. However, this does not appear to represent what was happening at Djeme. His name may be a marker of his family’s educated and elite status, but viewing it as a mark of identity is stretching too far. The onomastic range in seventh- and eighth-century Theban texts covered Egyptian names (Shenoute, Papnoute, Pachom, Onnophrios), Greek names (Andronicus, Asclepius, Heraclius, Sophia), Latin imperial names (Constantine), Roman institutional names transformed into proper names (Illoustre, Comes), Old Testament names (Abraham, Isaac, Aaron, David), and New Testament names (Petros, Marcus, Matthias).478 While Greek and Roman names are rare, they appear within families also using more common names and occur over both time and space. Some of these names are actually among the most common in Thebes, especially Comes and Constantine.479 Further, that these rare names appear in Theban documents does not mean they refer to Theban residents.480 Several appear in undated texts connected to the monastery of Epiphanius and so fragmentary that the function of each individual in the text is unknown.481 These onomastics Page 163 →cannot be used as evidence of an elite group fixated on the past, especially one based entirely in Djeme. Instead, Aristophanes’ use of Greek and the trappings of Greek elite status are indicative of the nature of his work. While only fleeting, often tenuous glimpses into his personal life can be caught in the documentary record, the chronology, paleography, and language of his dossier allows more substantial observations to be made about the nature of his professional career and the role he played in his community and society more broadly.

6.2. Aristophanes’ Career P.Bal. 130 Appendix A holds the key to understanding Aristophanes’ training and early career. While he was a “man of Djeme,” this document shows that his core training—at least in the writing of such administrative texts—was based on practice developed elsewhere. There is no parallel at Thebes for the text’s address formula: “With God. It is Sahl b. ʿAbd Allāh who writes to Daniel son of Pachom.” This same formula, σὺν θεῷ NN υἱὸς NN ⲡϥⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲛ̅NN (ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ

вІ›М…)NN, is found in a dozen tax demands from the Hermopolite region, all of which are issued by Arab officials:482 КїAbd AllДЃh b. КїAbd al-RaḥmДЃn (вІЃвІѓвІ‡вІ‰вІ—вІ—вІЃ вІЎПЈвІ‰вІ›вІЃвІѓвІ‡вІ‰вІЈвІЃвІ™вІЃвІ›): P.Mon.Apollo 28.483 RaЕЎД«d b. бёЄalД«d (бї¬О±О¶О№Оґ П…бј±бЅёП‚ О§О±О»ОµОґ): BKU III 339, 417; CPR IV 5.484 Е abД«b b. Sahm (ОЈОµПЂО№ПЂ П…бј±бЅёП‚ ОЈО±О±Ој): SB Kopt. IV 1784. YazД«d b. КїAbd al-RaḥmДЃn (бјёОµО¶О№Оґ П…бј±бЅёП‚ бј€ОІОґОµПЃО±ОјО±ОЅ):BKU III 418; P.Ryl.Copt. 117, 378, and possibly 119 (only [В .В .В .В ]ОµПЃО±ОјО±ОЅ survives).485 YazД«d b. SaвЂД«d (бјёОµО¶О№Оґ П…бј±бЅёП‚ ОЈОµОµО№Оґ): P.Ryl.Copt. 118 Page 164 →The best-attested official in this corpus of tax demands, Atias son of Goedos (бј€П„ОЇО±П‚ П…бј±бЅёП‚ О“ОїОµОґОїП‚), may also be an Arab, КїAб№-iyya b. З¦uвЂayd.486 In CPR VIII 72.2, he is referred to as бј€П„ОЇО±П‚ бјЂОјО№ПЃбѕ¶, which supports this notion. The official Sahl mentioned inP.Bal. 130 Appendix A is also an Arab.487 Aristophanes follows the pattern set by these Hermopolite tax demands in three ways: administrative practice, formulae, and paleography. The demands are written from the office of an Arab official, as demonstrated above. The one exception to this are the two receipts from Akoris (вІ§вІ‰П©вІ›вІ‰) in the Antinoopolite nome, which were issued by Apa Cyrus (alternatively вІЃвІЎвІЃ вІ•вІ©вІЈвІЏ and вІЃвІЎвІЃ вІ•вІ©вІЈвІџвІ©): SB Kopt. IV 1781 and 1782.488 These receipts both start with ПЂО±ПЃ(О¬) NN вІЎПҐвІҐП©вІЃвІ“489 (rather than ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї·) and, in the absence of absolute dates, may predate the Atias texts, thus representing an earlier practice. It is standard practice for the scribes of these tax demands not to sign their name. In this respect, tax demands, issued from the office of senior officials, differ to tax receipts written at Thebes, which are signed by the issuing scribe and the other local officials involved in tax collection.490 The authority of the demands derives from the name of this official; it does not come from the scribe himself (who is not notarizing these documents). Two of the demands, P.Ryl.Copt. 117 and 119, also bear an official seal, but this was not an official requirement, as indicated by the lack of seals or traces of their attachment on the other demands.491 Neither ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї· (equivalent to the Arabic Bismillah) nor П…бј±бЅёП‚ are uncommon in Thebes,492 but the construction вІЎПҐвІҐП©вІЃвІ“, the “counter-etymological Page 165 →spelling” of the вІЎвІ‰ПҐвІҐвІ±вІ§вІ™М… pattern (i.e., with вІЎПҐ-, not вІЎвІ‰ПҐ-), “it is NN who hears,” is very rare.493 This construction is not Theban but Middle Egyptian, occurring throughout Middle Egypt and northern Upper Egypt, with distinct loci in the region of Hermopolis and the monasteries south of Asyut, principally those at Deir el-Bala’izah and Wadi Sarga.494 This formula is found in all the tax demands listed above. Common to many of the demands is the opening formula in lines 2–3 of P.Bal. 130 Appendix A: [вІ›вІЃ]вІ“ [вІ›вІ‰]вІ›вІ§вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЃП©[вІџ]вІ• вІ™вІ™вІџвІџвІ© вІ›вІ…вІ§вІЃвІЃвІ© “These are what are due and you will pay them.” Compare BKU III 339.2, 340.1, 418.2–3; CPR IV 4.2; P.Mon.Apollo. 28.2–3, 29.2–3, 30.3; P.Ryl.Copt. 117.2–3, 118.2–3; and SB Kopt. IV 1782.2, 1784.3, and 1785.2.495 Other standard formulae are shared between the corpus, including the writing of a rГ©sumГ© of the amount of tax to be paid and the date of the demand.496 There is a bigraphic switch from Greek to Coptic within the documents.497 Analysis of the originals of the tax demands mentioned above shows that their scribes used the same practice.498 The level of variation across the dossier of tax demands results in little comparable material. As the ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї· formula is standard, it provides the best basis for comparison of ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї·, П…бј±бЅёП‚, and вІЎПҐвІҐП©вІЃвІ“. Similarities do exist. Apart from the overall aspect of the hands, the following paleographical observations can be made. The letterforms that are diagnostic of Aristophanes’ Greek hand are also used by these scribes: lambda in П†О»(О¬ОїП…О№ОїП‚) (CPR IV 3.1) has a long left limb; П…О№ in П…бј±бЅёП‚ are ligatured such that they resemble Page 166 →the Coptic letter upsilon, and the ligature is accompanied by a small omicron above iota; the ligature group ПѓП…ОЅ is written in the same way, although Aristophanes wrote a smaller sigma;499 pi in вІЎПҐвІҐП©вІЃвІ“ is always in its Coptic form. In chapter 2.2, the problems inherent in attributing unsigned

texts to Aristophanes were discussed. The points raised there, principally that scribes trained in the same school of practice exhibit the same paleographic features, are pertinent here but to different effect: the scribes of these tax demands, working in different areas of the country, exhibit the same overall paleographic features, which differ only in terms of personal ductus. Atias is the earliest of the Arab officials mentioned in the Hermopolite tax demands. The Coptic texts in his dossier can be dated to 696–703.500 RaЕЎД«d, YazД«d b. КїAbd al-RaḥmДЃn, and YazД«d b. SaвЂД«d all served as pagarch of the Hermopolite nome, but their documents do not contain absolute dates, and it is impossible to place them in relative chronology, let alone to assign to them specific dates. Even without dates for these later officials, the most important point is that the origins of this Hermopolite practice certainly predated Aristophanes. Whether he was a contemporary of some of these scribes or part of a subsequent generation cannot be determined. SB XVIII 13247 is a scribal exercise from the Fayum that mentions Muslim officials.501 It is one of a group of similar texts that represent the work of novice Page 167 →or professional scribes working in the offices of local officials.502 Each official’s name is preceded by ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї·, demonstrating that this formula was a part of standard scribal training.503 The paleography of this text, which Gonis describes as “a splendid example of the Greek official cursive in the eighth century,”504 again bears many points of similarity with the Hermopolite tax demands, albeit in a much finer hand. Concerning individual letter formation, lambda has a long left limb, which is a diagnostic feature of this style, and beta is in its minuscule form. Both forms are found in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A. A clear chancery style used for Greek fiscal documents in the late seventh to eighth centuries is apparent. Already in 1926, Bell commented on this style of hand—which he referred to, for convenience, as “minuscule”—as that universally used in accounts, by local authorities and in the governor’s chancery.505 Aristophanes uses this style, subject to his own personal ductus. Apart from SB III 7240, sent by Atias to the monastery of Apa Paul in 697, there are no examples of this style in Thebes that predate Aristophanes, certainly none that were produced in the region. Why was this style introduced to Thebes? More specifically, how and why did Aristophanes receive this particular training? The answer to these questions lies in the economic and administrative changes implemented by the Arabs and in the nature of their rule in the first century after the conquest. Egypt initially served as a “wellstocked way station”506 for the Arab armies as their conquest of northern Africa progressed to Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and Spain (conquered in 711), until their advance was halted at Poitiers, in west-central France, at the Page 168 →Battle of Tours on 10 October 732. To maintain these armies and the inhabitants of the Hijaz and then Damascus, the caliphal seat, it was essential to establish an efficient means to supply them. Principally, this involved money and commodities, the collection of which necessitated increased centralization of the administrative apparatus.507 Within the first fifty years after the conquest, the new rulers established a diwan (chancellery) in Egypt (in which all the country’s taxes were centrally regulated),508 a postal service,509 new official titles,510 and the new religious poll tax.511 Requisition orders were dispatched for taxes and personnel, with this system of corvГ©es targeted toward equipping the navy and providing labor for construction at shipyards (e.g., in Clysma) and in the major centers Fustat, Damascus, and Jerusalem.512 New measures under the governors КїAbd al-КїAzД«z b. MarwДЃn (685–705) and КїAbd AllДЃh b. КїAbd al-Malik (705–709) included land surveys and censuses, as well as the introduction of passes for safe conduct, designed to limit and control the movement of taxpayers.513 These new measures brought with them an increase in paperwork, to maintain control Page 169 →of everything. As Sijpesteijn has observed, even taking into consideration the vagaries of preservation, this “proliferation of paperwork” is a result of the Arabs’ tightening grasp of the financial oversight of the country.514 Indeed, even Bell, who was generally unenthusiastic concerning the nature of Arab rule, refers to the tax demands as indicative of the “excessive centralization” introduced by them.515 Immediately after the conquest, Arabic was used for administrative purposes in Egypt. The earliest bilingual Greek-Arabic papyrus is dated 25 April 643 (SB VI 9576).516 This text, from Heracleopolis, is an acknowledgment of receipt, by the amir КїAbd AllДЃh, of sixty-five sheep for the provision of the army. Within

the corpus of seventh- and eighth-century bilingual Greek-Arabic texts, each language conforms to its own conventions; one is not a translation of the other.517 The Arabs brought with them their own documentary practice, distinct from the preconquest Egyptian tradition. This “proliferation of paperwork” is a distinct characteristic of the new regime’s measures and not merely something that it adopted and adapted from their predecessors. Around the turn of the eighth century, the administration underwent a more rapid process of Arabization and Islamization, with Arabic becoming the principal language of the chancellery518 and with Arabs replacing local Egyptians as regional officials throughout the country, most notably, at first, in the position of pagarch.519 The introduction of Arabic into the documentary record did not curtail the use of Greek or Coptic in the country. Indeed, the contrary happened, with the number of administrative texts increasing after the conquest, when Coptic was Page 170 →used for the first time for such official purposes.520 The Coptic texts in Atias’ archive are the earliest concerning the administration of taxes, but the unpublished texts in the Edfu Papas archive (see above), some twenty to thirty years earlier, represent the earliest evidence of Coptic used for communication with the central administration, regarding requisition of goods and people.521 Aristophanes’ taxation documents have to be understood within this context of the adoption of Coptic for official administrative purposes by the new regime. The first Coptic documents come from major centers, that is, nome capitals. From north to south, there is evidence for Hermopolis (the tax demands discussed above), Aphrodito (the Qurra archive), and Edfu (the Papas archive).522 As far as can be determined from the available dating criteria, the Edfu material is the earliest, while the Atias Hermopolite texts and the Aphrodito Qurra texts can be attributed to within the period 690–715. The relevant Theban evidence dates after this period. If this distribution pattern is correct, the Arabs were concerned first with establishing their administrative practices in these larger centers, from which their attention moved to the smaller towns and villages in the countryside. This process should not be surprising. The first tax receipts from Djeme were written by older scribes in the village. Psate son of Pisrael and Johannes son of Lazarus are attested in 698, when they both appeared in P.CLT 1.523 Psate’s scribal activity spanned at least thirty years,524 while Johannes’ spanned approximately forty years.525 Of the two, Psate has the largest corpus of tax receipts, which dates from the twelfth year of one Page 171 →indiction cycle to the ninth year in the next526 and which is as large as Aristophanes’ corpus.527 This period corresponds to 713 /4–726, making him the first scribe to write such receipts in Djeme. Johannes’ receipts were written in indiction years 9–11, with his activity mostly falling within the six-month period from March to August 726 (i.e., over the late tenth and early eleventh indiction years).528 While Aristophanes was involved with taxation from 724 (when he wrote P.Bal. 130 Appendix A), he did not begin writing tax receipts until April/May 727, at which point he replaced Johannes as the primary tax receipt scribe. The hiatus in Aristophanes’ written record during the period 724–726 is discussed below. These three scribes represent a continuum, during which time they predominate the written record: Psate (713 /4–724/5) to Johannes (726–727) to Aristophanes (727–730). They are not the only scribes who wrote such receipts, though. Psan son of Basileios and, later, Anastaios wrote receipts between 717 and 719. There are no texts with overlapping dates between these two scribes, indicating that Anastasios replaced Psan. But they were contemporary with Psate during these years. Contemporary with Aristophanes is Cyriacus son of Petros, whose published receipts date from 30 July to 18 September 727, during which months Aristophanes was also active (see appendix 3).529 Yet they did not issue receipts for the same taxes: Cyriacus only collected the poll tax for the year two years previous to that in which the receipt was written, that is, for indiction year 9, not indiction year 11.530 In chronological terms, scribes of tax receipts can be divided into three groups, which match the formulaic groups discussed in chapter 4.2: (1) Psate, Psan, and Anastasios; (2) Johannes; (3) Aristophanes and Cyriacus. Page 172 →The stylistic and chronological connections between Aristophanes and Cyriacus extend beyond tax receipts. Even though Cyriacus’ dossier is much smaller (in addition to his tax receipts, he wrote P.KRU 28 and 50), enough data survives to demonstrate this extension. Paleographically, not only did both of these scribes employ bigraphism in their tax receipts and legal documents, but their letter formations for both Coptic and Greek

letters are very similar.531 This style is markedly different from the styles of Psate and Johannes.532 Beyond stylistic features, other aspects of their texts connect the two scribes. Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh appears in documents by both: P.Bal. 130 Appendix A by Aristophanes and P.KRU 50 by Cyriacus. In the latter text, Sahl is named in the Greek protocol at the beginning of the document: бјђПЂбЅ¶ О¦О»(О±П…ОЇбїі) ОЈО±бЅ°О» П„бї· ОµбЅђОєО»Оµ(ОµПѓП„О¬П„бїі) бјЂОјОЇПЃО± бјЂПЂбЅё О”О№ОїПѓПЂПЊО»(ОµП‰П‚) бј•П‰(П‚) О›О¬П„П‰(ОЅПЂПЊО»ОµП…П‚) ПЂО±ОіО¬ПЃП‡бїѓ “under Flavius Sahl, the most famous amir, pagarch of Diospolis [Luxor] and Latopolis [Esna].”533 A shift in practice happened during the 720s, moving from the style used by older scribes in the village to that of a new generation, which emerged from this decade. Aristophanes was at the forefront of this change. His documents from this period, which start with the tax demands P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B, have no connections with documents written before 724 in Thebes. The precedent for both the text types and the paleographic style are set elsewhere, in the offices of senior officials, the evidence for which primarily comes from the Hermopolite nome. The similarities between Aristophanes’ texts and these northern tax demands have already been discussed. Note, in particular, the letter from Atias that was sent to Thebes in 697 (SB III 7240): texts written in this script were present in the area before (or shortly after) Aristophanes was born. Page 173 →Stronger similarities are found in texts written closer to Thebes, both geographically and temporally. Theodore is the best-attested scribe from early eighth-century Aphrodito, with a dossier of twenty-four papyrus documents (a corpus almost as large as that of Aristophanes).534 His texts date to the end of the governorship of КїAbd AllДЃh b. КїAbd al-Malik and the beginning of that of Qurra b. Е harД«k.535 More precisely, every text that preserves a date is from 708–709. In most of his documents, he refers to himself as a symbolaiographos (ПѓП…ОјОІОїО»О±О№ОїОіПЃО¬П†ОїП‚), with the exception of P.Lond. IV 1518, 1519, and 1521, where he records his title as nomikos (ОЅОїОјО№ОєПЊП‚). It may be a coincidence that these three documents are those written to КїAbd AllДЃh and are the three documents in his corpus that certainly concern fugitives (an extract from P.Lond. IV 1518 is shown in fig. 6.4). Symbolaiographos should designate Theodore as a private notary for private customers. However, with the exception of P.Lond. IV 1596, the receipt of a loan,536 and P.Lond. IV 1610, an indemnification against the authorities in respect of property stolen from the first party and found in a neighbor’s house, all the documents in the corpus concern official matters: guarantees concerning sailors for the naval duty and workmen for projects in Egypt and beyond; taxes, including requisitions of money for construction materials; and fugitives. However, even P.Lond. IV 1610 is addressed to Qurra, despite it being a private document. There is little evidence of Theodore as a private notary. Aristophanes and Theodore both served as administrative scribes, albeit of different text types, in different cities, and fifteen years apart. Examination of their handwriting attributes them to the same school in terms of scribal training but not in relation to overall scribal practice, if a distinction can be made Page 174 →between the two. These scribes’ documents differ on points of orthography and use of formulae, which may reflect regional variation. For example, the two scribes employed different variations of the Christian invocation found at the beginning of their texts.537 Theodore used form 2G,538 a form not found in Thebes, while Aristophanes used 2E.539 At the end of the documents, the Stipulationsklausel, “I was asked and I agreed,” is also different. Theodore used вІЃвІ©П«вІ›вІџвІ©вІ“ вІЃвІ“П©вІџвІ™вІџвІ—вІџвІ…вІ‰вІ“ (First Perfect + First Perfect),540 while Aristophanes used вІ›вІҐвІ‰П«вІ›вІџвІ©вІ“ вІ›вІ§вІЃП©вІџвІ™вІџвІ—вІџвІ…вІ‰вІ“ (Conjunctive + Conjunctive).541 The second of these is not found at Aphrodito, but both are found in Thebes, and the replacement of the first form there with the second was suggested, by Till, to be a chronological indicator in the dating of the Theban corpus.542 It is possible that the use of only the first form at Aphrodito is based on chronological factors, as these texts are earlier than many of the Theban legal documents, but this possibility cannot be confirmed. A sweeping generalization in the introduction to P.Lond. IV noted the paleographic similarities between Theodore and Aristophanes, claiming that Theodore’s script is “a flowing and ligatured type, not greatly different from those of the JГЄme documents of half a century later.”543 This statement is not Page 175 →entirely accurate. Not all Djeme documents are written in a flowing and ligatured hand in the mid-eighth century,544 and

the texts that are start to appear almost two decades after the Coptic Aphrodito texts in question. The statement does, though, apply to Aristophanes’ texts. Among Theodore’s body of writing, it is possible to find letters, ligature groups, words, abbreviated words, and entire phrases that look very similar to the same written by Aristophanes. Indeed, they are identical in many instances, while their forms differ elsewhere according to the personal ductus of each man. Theodore’s individual letter formation in the sample provided in figure 6.4 can be compared to Aristophanes’ in the figures used throughout this volume. Theodore also employed two distinct scripts when writing Coptic and Greek. Figure 6.4 is an example of this practice from P.Lond. IV 1518, a document concerning fugitives. Apollo son of Pshoi, Theodosius son of Shenoute, and Ezekias son of Gamoul acknowledge the receipt of six families, found south of Aphrodito in Psoi (Ptolemais) and sent home by the local authority КїAbd AllДЃh b. Е urayḥ.545 The narrative of the text is written in Coptic, as are the witness statements. Between these is the list of the families, including the name of each member, which is written in Greek. The switch from one script to the next is immediate and clear. The difference in the general appearance of the two sections is exactly that found in P.CLT 3 when Aristophanes switched to Greek, in Greek script, to list and describe the three monks in question. The form of minuscule that Theodore used is that already described above, and his formations of the five key diagnostic letters—β, О», Ој, ПЂ, and υ—are the same formations used by Aristophanes and Cyriacus. Despite being separated by time and space, Aristophanes’ style is strikingly like Theodore’s and not like any style employed in western Thebes before him, whether from village or monastery.546 A standardized administrative style employedPage 176 → throughout the country by scribes writing Greek, Coptic, and GreekCoptic texts implies the existence of standardized training. State control of scribal training fits the image of the “excessively” centralized administration introduced by the new regime. To successfully implement and monitor new measures, a firm grasp over how these were carried out was essential, not just in the major cities, but throughout the country. This was especially important concerning the collection of taxes and requisitioning of goods and labor. Theodore and Aristophanes did not write the same type of administrative texts (those written by Aristophanes are focused entirely on taxation and not on other fiscal activities), but the two must have received the same type of training. This statement is easy to make, but the mechanisms behind this process are not apparent and are difficult to discern, especially as the only example of this script Page 177 →in Thebes that predates Aristophanes—SB III 7240 (697)—is surely too early to have directly influenced scribal practice in the 720s. Fig. 6.4. Example of Theodore’s Greek hand, P.Lond. IV 1518.15–27. Or. 6212. В© British Library Board. There are two options, neither of which is supported by the extant material. Either Aristophanes left the village to receive his technical training (perhaps at Ermont, the closest nome capital), or a master scribe was sent to the village to train scribes in this particular style. Unfortunately in this respect, Aristophanes appears in the written record as a professional scribe, with no evidence of him as a novice (he does not appear in witness statements, which are vital in following the development of other writers’ skill levels,547 but the same is true of most professional scribes). How his personal style developed cannot be traced. Presumably he received some basic education before his technical schooling, but, again, the record is silent in this respect. It is certain that Aristophanes was not the only scribe to go through this process at Djeme. Cyriacus, as demonstrated above, is his direct contemporary in every sense. He appears at the same time, wrote in the same fashion, wrote first tax receipts and then private documents, and is one of the few other scribes who also mention the pagarch Sahl. SB Kopt. IV 1806548 provides evidence for the bilingual training of a scribe in the seventh century.549 A scribe wrote three sample legal documents on the verso of a papyrus originally used for a Coptic testament. Forty-four lines survive: lines 1–14 belong to text I, lines 15–41 to text II, and lines 41–44 to text III. The beginning of text I is lost, as is most of text III. Greek and Coptic versions survive for texts I and II; for text III, only the Greek survives. Throughout, several lines of Greek (ranging from 4.5 to 7.5 lines) are written first and followed by the Coptic translation.550 The unknown scribe did not change script to write in each language but used a mostly unligatured, right-leaning majuscule throughout. It is not clear whether the first language of the scribe

responsible Page 178 →was Greek or Coptic,551 but other points are more important here. SB Kopt. IV 1806 was written in Hermopolis, predates Aristophanes, and contains Greek that is longer and more complex than anything written by a Theban scribe. While this has an important bearing on how bilingual scribes were trained in Hermopolis (an important center, as has already been stressed), it cannot be applied to scribes in Thebes. Further, Aristophanes was not a bilingual scribe. His use of Greek was purely functional and for clearly defined purposes. There are no instances in which he had to translate from one language to another (except for amounts of money), and there was no need for a legal document originating in Djeme in the eighth century to be written entirely in Greek.552 Aristophanes was trained in a specific administrative style, for which SB Kopt. IV 1806 provides no point of contact. Leaving aside the beginning of Aristophanes’ professional career, except to reiterate that it must have been part of a wider framework of technical training in the country, there is more to say about how he operated within the village, although many questions about that will also remain unanswered. Aristophanes’ earliest text is P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, which was written as if from the pagarch’s office and has a damaged parallel (not a copy) in P.Bal. 130 Appendix B. The existence of the parallel text raises the possibility that both documents were produced as part of a series of identical tax demands, in which Aristophanes did not include the taxpayer’s name initially but added it later, after officials had determined which villagers were responsible for those duties. The first two lines of text A may support such a situation. After the Greek opening formula (ПѓбЅєОЅ Оё(Оµбї·) ОЈО±бЅ°О» П…бј±бЅё(П‚) бј€ОІОґОµО»О»О±), the first Coptic word starts below the level of the final letters of Sahl’s name, and the taxpayer’s name—Daniel son of Pachom—is more spaced out than the text in the following lines, suggesting that Aristophanes was trying to fill the gap here. Yet the line still falls just short of the length of the following lines. The beginning of the following line (вІЎвІЈвІ™вІЎвІ•вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЈ[вІџ]вІ› П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰) would be applicable to any taxpayer, as all taxpayers were from the village and as no extra specific information, such as occupation, was provided.553 There is precedent for the offices of other pagarchs producing a series of Page 179 →demands without names and the amount of tax to be paid, which would be sent to the village for the local officials to complete. Stud.Pal. VIII 1199 and 1200 contain a series of four and three such demands respectively, each group written on the same piece of papyrus, which was not cut into individual texts.554 Both series date to 759 and derive from the office of the Arsinoite pagarch YaḥyДЃ b. HilДЃl.555 These Greek tax demands are identical; each of their five lines starts with the same formula on all the receipts.556 However, this is not the case in the demands produced in the late seventh and early eighth centuries.557 For example, there is no consistent practice in the tax demands issued from the Hermopolite office of Atias (see above). Some included the profession of the taxpayer (CPR IV 3.2; P.Ryl.Copt. 118; SB Kopt. IV 1785.2); others do not include the name of the village (CPR IV 6, the only demand in which the address does not continue to the second line). The result is that the toponym is not the first word on line 2 in the known Coptic demands from Atias’ office. While these demands were written on different days and probably not by the same scribe (this is difficult to ascertain based on the small corpus size and overall paleographic similarities), the level of variation found in all demands from this period indicates that the practice of producing demands in series is a later development, perhaps applicable only to Yaḥyā’s office. In this context, Aristophanes conforms to the earlier pattern of a single scribe writing the entire text, and the uneven writing line in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B may be explained by his shift in script. This does not, though, address where Aristophanes may have written these demands. In the same year, 724, Aristophanes acted as amanuensis in P.CLT 6, which indicates he was in the village at this time and not working in the pagarch’s office. The most probable situation is that he always worked in the village, as Nikolaos Gonis has already suggested:558 the pagarch issued Djeme its entire tax quota, the local officialsPage 180 → divided this among those liable in the village (according to what each could pay), and Aristophanes then wrote the individual demands. No such document from the pagarch survives, nor do any accounts that could be linked to this process, 559 but such texts documenting tax quotas are attested elsewhere.560 P.Bal. 130 Appendix A.7 supports this interpretation: the demand (вІЎвІ“вІ§вІ§вІЃвІ•вІ“вІџвІ›) is issued вІЎвІЈвІџвІҐ вІ§П-вІџвІ™ вІ›вІ‡вІ“вІџвІ“вІ•(вІЏвІҐвІ“вІҐ) вІ›вІ§вІ‰вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ§вІ“вІ™вІ‰ “according to the authority of (the) administration of your village.”561 This indicates a two-tiered level of authority within the document itself.

The highest level of authority comes from the pagarch, who is the only named official in the document (as is the case with all such demands) and was the head financial officer of the region. Whether or not he or his office played an actual role in this process may not be important, but invoking his name legitimized the document, rather than it being mere formulae.562 The second level is occupied by the village officials, whether the “great men” generally or the current dioiketes or lashane. Aristophanes worked for the local officials. After P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B and P.CLT 6, there is a hiatus of three years in Aristophanes’ written record, until 727–730, to which years date the tax receipts that he issued. The absence of any evidence for his activities during the intervening time, when there is such a flurry of taxation activity, may simply be the result of the chance survival of relevant documents. His time line has many lacunae in later decades. These lacunae do not indicate that he was not in Djeme during these periods, even if it is tempting to locate him elsewhere, such as in the pagarch’s office or in a different village. During the period in which he wrote tax receipts, Aristophanes also wrote P.CLT 3 (728). This letter, concerning a long-distance travel request for three monks from the monastery of Apa Paul, is written from the dioiketes Chael and Johannes to an Arab official (presumably Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh), not from monastic authorities. The monastery did not have the authority to make such a request to the pagarch directly and was dependent on Djeme for communicationPage 181 → with local senior officials. This letter also mentions taxes, that the monks in question had paid their dues for the twelfth indiction year. Aristophanes wrote the letter in his role as the principal taxation scribe in the village. He did not sign it, because, as with P.Bal. 130 Appendix, the authority did not come from him. It is possible that P.CLT 3 represents a copy of the letter, made for the monastery, as, while the verso contains an address, no official is actually named. Permission from the amir was required for such long-distance travel but not for travel over shorter distances, for which village authorities sufficed. O.BM EA 44848 and P.Schutzbriefe 10, 23, 27, and 28 are examples of passes for safe conduct that were produced to enable such travel.563 They are written from the office of the meizon, the Greek position equivalent to the lashane.564 Unlike the texts that directly involved the pagarch, Aristophanes signed these documents, just as he also signed the tax receipts that were written for villagers. This may indicate that Aristophanes’ role on a village level was that of a notary, certifying and thereby legitimizing these short official documents. Both the receipts and travel documents are united by the medium on which they were written, ostraca, rather than papyrus as was used for P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and P.CLT 3. This use of material may be a further indication of the level of authority from which they were issued, with papyrus reserved for missives to the pagarch or for documents originating (in theory or in practice) from his office. In linguistic terms, these administrative texts—P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, P.CLT 3, and the aforementioned passes for safe conduct—are connected by their use of the previously discussed вІЎ(вІ‰)ПҐвІҐвІ±вІ§вІ™ construction. However, the construction is only used correctly in the first document, where it is part of a formulaic construction common to tax demands. In the other texts, each of which is addressed by two officials to a villager, the construction is incorrectly applied, with вІЎвІ‰вІ©вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ used where вІ›вІ‰вІ©вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ is required in order to reflect the multiple parties. Perhaps Aristophanes appropriated the construction from one formula and incorrectly applied it to a different situation.565 Alternatively, a different model may have been used for these texts. The tax demands SB Kopt. IV 1781 and 1782 begin with the formula ПЂО±ПЃ(О¬) ОќОќ вІЎПҐвІҐП©вІЃвІ“ вІ›NN, which, as I suggested above, may be a predecessor of the standard pattern found in most demands (i.e., ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї·В .В .В .). P.Schutzbriefe 9, 22, 30, and 54 also use this construction (whether singular вІЎ(вІ‰)ПҐвІҐвІ±вІ§вІ™ or plural вІ›(вІ‰)вІ©вІҐвІ±вІ§вІ™).566 Page 182 →After 730, there is no evidence that Aristophanes wrote any more documents concerning taxation.567 There is also no later reference to the pagarch in his corpus, although Arab officials continued to be mentioned in settlements of dispute. The early Abbasid tax demands from the office of YaḥyДЃ b. HilДЃl show that tax demands continued to be distributed in Greek until this period. However, no known Coptic tax demand can be dated later than the 730s. This shift in the linguistic record suggests a change in how taxes were administered from this time. Coptic was used throughout Egypt for a forty-year period from the late seventh century, to allow the

central administration to take firm control of the fiscal situation of the country among the indigenous population. As the processes of Arabization and Islamization of the administration progressed, Coptic was replaced by Arabic, and local Egyptian officials were replaced by Arabs. It is certainly not the case that taxes were no longer required during this period.568 Yet these processes only account for the loss of Coptic; they do not explain the continuation of Greek for this purpose in the Arsinoite nome. The historic predominance of Greek in the pagarch’s office must be responsible, and the language must have maintained its importance there even into the Abbasid period.569 This shift in administrative practice, which manifests itself at Djeme by apparent silence in the written record, resulted in a change of focus for Aristophanes’ professional activities. From this time until he stopped writing in the 750s, he worked as a private scribe for villagers, producing deeds of sale, settlement, and donation for the people of Djeme. In so doing, he continued the scribal practices that he had learned during the previous decade: notably, he used two scripts, Coptic and Greek, for writing different parts of his documents, and he used Greek rhetoric and formulae that were previously unattested in legal documents from Thebes. For example, in his sale documents P.KRU 11.28, 14.41, and 27.34, Aristophanes used the following expression as part of the description Page 183 →of the property in question: вІЎвІЈвІџвІҐ вІ›ПҐвІ‘вІ‰вІҐвІ“вІҐ вІ›вІЃвІЈвІ-вІЃвІ“вІџвІ›вІ•вІЃвІ“ вІЎвІЃвІ—вІЃвІ“вІџвІЇвІ“вІ› вІџвІ©вІ§вІ± вІЎвІ‰вІЈвІ“вІ‰вІ-ⲟⲩⲥⲓⲛ“according to its ancient boundaries and traditional surrounding appearance.”570 вІЎвІЃвІ—вІЃвІ“вІџвІЇвІ“вІ› is otherwise unattested in Coptic documents, while вІџвІ©вІ§вІ± вІЎвІ‰вІЈвІ“вІ‰вІ-вІџвІ©вІҐвІ“is found in P.KRU 28.12 and 50.41, both by Cyriacus son of Petros (providing yet another point of contact between the two scribes). This phrase is inserted as a loan into the Coptic and is written in the same style as the surrounding text. It is not considered a Greek part of the document, as are the invocation, date, signature, and so on, which were written in Greek script. Other examples of such loan phrases in Aristophanes’ texts include вІ‰вІ› вІЎвІЃвІҐвІЏ вІЃвІ…вІЃвІ‘вІЏ вІ•вІЃвІ“ вІ•вІЃвІ—вІЏ вІЎвІЈвІџвІ‰вІЈвІЃвІ“вІҐвІЏ “In all good and proper free choice” (P.KRU 11.16, 14.25–26, 15.22–23) and вІ‡вІ“вІЃ вІ-вІ‰вІ“вІЈвІџвІҐвІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІ-ⲉⲓⲣⲁ“from hand to hand” (P.KRU 10.42, 11.37, 14.51, 15.50). This code mixing—the mixing of linguistic units, here Greek and Coptic—is the result of how Coptic developed as a legal language, drawing heavily from its Greek counterpart. The most extreme interpretation of this practice is to consider these texts as “Greek documents in Coptic dress, ”571 but this approach obscures the level of variation found within Coptic legal documents, both within a single site and across time and space, a topic that requires much greater study.

6.3. Aristophanes as Teacher One aspect of Aristophanes’ professional life, his potential role as a teacher in the village, is not covered by the contents of his documents. In his texts, Aristophanes used no title that marked him out in this capacity, just as he never used a title designating him as a professional scribe.572 Apart from it being a hypothetical probability that he taught novice scribes, it is possible to identify one professional scribe whom he may have trained, David son of Psate. It is important to bear in mind that much of the literature on education in Egypt focuses on the Hellenistic and Roman periods and is mostly not applicable to the period in question. School exercises from across western Thebes attest the elementary stages of education in Page 184 →the region, based on learning the alphabet and epistolary formulae, although evidence for this from Djeme specifically is lacking. The following discussion is based, instead, on the premise that Aristophanes provided instruction in the technical training required for writing legal documents. David is the scribe of four documents that bear his signature, ОґО№бѕЅ бјђОјОїбї¦ О”О±П…ОµбЅ¶Оґ П…бј±Оїбї¦ ОЁО¬П„Оµ бјђОіПЃО¬П†О· (P.KRU 5.71, 19.99, 24.153, and 90.51). Two further documents were attributed to him by Crum (P.KRU 98 and 102), another two by Richter (P.KRU 22 and 29).573 In addition, he acted as witness to P.KRU 43.75, 87.54, and 95.41–43 and O.CrumVC 6v.16. Several aspects of this corpus connect him with Aristophanes, including the social context of his documents, his chronology, and his style. Except for O.CrumVC 6v, he only appears as a witness in Aristophanes’ texts. Not only did David write the same types of documents as Aristophanes, but two of his documents involve the same individuals for whom Aristophanes wrote. P.KRU 5 is a deed of sale in which Aaron son of Shenoute is the seller (as he is in P.KRU 14

and 15), and P.KRU 24 is a sale involving the granddaughter of Abessa and daughter of Tsherkah, whose family is documented in P.KRU 25, 26, 47, and 48 and mentioned in P.KRU 11 (as well as P.KRU 45 and 46, in which Aristophanes acted as witness).574 Papnoute son of Stephanos, the purchaser in P.KRU 22 and 29, appears as a witness in P.KRU 14 and 15 and in P.KRU 90. In fact, he is only attested in texts written by Aristophanes and David.575 O.CrumVC 6v is the earliest text in this corpus. It is dated Mesore 18, indiction year 6, which equates to 11 August 738.576 The rest of David’s activity can be placed between 747/8 and 763, as follows: Page 185 →P.KRU 19: Hathor 8, indiction year 1 = 5 November 747 P.KRU 5: Phamenoth 28, indiction year 1 = 24 March 748 P.KRU 43: 748/9577 P.KRU 98: indiction year 7 = 753/4578 P.KRU 22: after 759/60579 P.KRU 102: Epiph 8, indiction year 15 = 2 June 762 P.KRU 24: Epiph 5, indiction year 1 = 29 June 763 P.KRU 29, 87, 90, and 95 do not have preserved dates, but all can be dated to the 750s and 760s.580 Regardless of whether the earliest date for David is 738 or 747, this chronology makes it possible that he was taught by Aristophanes in the 730s or later, by which time Aristophanes was an established scribe in the village. David’s documents are built around the set of formulae used by Aristophanes. While some of these formulae were frequently used by other scribes, Aristophanes provides the greatest number of parallels by far and the only parallels for certain phrases.581 The two scribes share few orthographic peculiarities, partly due to their consistency in spelling.582 Paleographically, the two are very similar, both in overall aspect and individual letter formation. Figure 6.5 presents an extract from one of David’s documents, P.KRU 5, which contains strong paleographic similarities between the two scribes, in both their Coptic and Greek scripts (in the latter, note especially the minuscule form of ОІ). David exhibits the same form of bigraphism—in letter formation and application of this process—as Aristophanes. Scribes in the village had to be trained somewhere. How and where Aristophanes received his training is difficult to ascertain, as his style is such a departure from what previously existed in the village. David was part of the same school of practice that appeared with Aristophanes and Cyriacus in the 720s. Page 186 →The context and chronology of his texts connect him closely with Aristophanes; there is no evidence connecting him with Cyriacus. By referring to a “school of practice,” I do not mean to imply that physical schools existed in the village. Indeed, not only is there a lack of extensive archaeological data for the function of specific buildings within the village, but the idea of a school may be unrealistic; instead, pupils may have been taught in a single room in a building or in an open space outside and may have received their training on an individual basis.583 Rather than a search for schools, the focus of study should shift to identifying the influence of older scribes on younger ones.584 Aristophanes’ influence on David is clear, and it seems safe to conclude that David was his student, receiving technical training under Aristophanes in the form of a professional apprenticeship. It is equally likely that Aristophanes taught a number of other scribes in the village, but the body of evidence is such that these other individuals are difficult to identify (no other scribe has as large a dossier). Fig. 6.5. Extract from a document written by David son of Psate, P.KRU 5.28–36. Or. 4873. В© British Library Board. Page 187 →As a property holder, it is likely that Aristophanes taught novice scribes at home. Yet there is no evidence to support this. Similarly, just as the cost of drawing up legal documents is unknown,585 there is no direct evidence for how much Aristophanes earned as a teacher. Two ostraca that may be from western Thebes provide some evidence for what a teacher may earn. Two men, the priests Patermoute and Sansno, swear that another priest, Isaac, paid a man, Pheu, one tremis to teach his son how to read and write. In each text, payment

only exchanged hands once it was demonstrated that Pheu had completed this task.586 This payment, however, was for initial training, not for advanced training in documentary production. Furthermore, the timescale is left undetermined, and it is impossible to know how many students Pheu had at any given time. How much income such teaching generated remains unknown. Even for earlier periods in Egypt, there is limited evidence for the cost of teaching. P.Oxy. IV 724, from 155 CE, concerns the apprenticeship of a slave to a shorthand writer (ПѓО·ОјОµО№ОїОіПЃО¬П†ОїП‚) for two years at a cost of 120 silver drachmas, paid in three installments.587 Diocletian’s Edict of Maximum Prices set prices for a wide range of goods and services, including teachers’ monthly wages, ranging from 50 denarii a month at the elementary level to 250 at the highest.588 These anachronistic Roman prices are not applicable to the situation in eighth-century Thebes. Aristophanes’ advanced years and increasing inability to teach (based on the deterioration of his writing skills in the 750s) may have led him to sell his land in order to recuperate lost teaching income. The two holokottinoi that he received from a land sale would have been sufficient to pay his taxes for several years. Perhaps he continued to work as a scribe until his death in order to meet his other living costs. This scenario is hypothetical but appealing.589 Aristophanes played several roles in the village, all connected with writing. In his earliest years, he served as a village administrator, collecting and recording taxes. This position must have brought him into contact with most of the village’s residents, several of whom recur often in his corpus. When the taxation Page 188 →system underwent changes after 730, he moved into the private sphere, adopting and adapting much of his previous training for his new job of drawing up documents for the villagers of Djeme. At the same time, he served another function in the community, passing on his technical expertise to younger scribes, in whom we see a continuation of the same school of practice. The survival of his documents has made him well known to posterity, and the activities that they record must have made him a well-known figure in his own world of eighth-century Thebes.

6.4. Anatomy of an Early Islamic Coptic Scribe Aristophanes is not the person from Djeme about whom we know the most. This honor belongs to the families whose arguments and property wranglings are recorded in multiple legal documents and preserved for posterity thanks to the perfect conditions of the Egyptian climate: Aaron son of Shenoute, Daniel son of Pachom, and the families of Abessa and Takoum and of Germanos. Yet these documents also provide information about the scribes who wrote them, and Aristophanes was the most prolific of them all. He wrote more documents than any other Theban scribe, connected to a monastery or a village, in the seventh and eighth centuries, and he wrote the greatest range of document types, both administrative and private. We catch fleeting glimpses of Aristophanes as a private person. He was a wealthy property owner and a teacher, who continued working until the vagaries of old age caught up with him. It is possible to place him within a scribal family, with his brother Johannake, a professional scribe, and his son Leontios, a competent writer in the late 750s. Socially, he lived among and wrote for the wealthiest sectors of the local society, and he can be labeled as part of the village elite, working for the highest levels of the administration, himself a “great man” of Djeme. More important, the documents that he wrote reveal the role of Coptic scribes in the wider economic and political situation of Egypt in the second quarter of the eighth century, amid the changes taking place under the Umayyad caliphate. As the new rulers tightened their grip on the collection of taxes, they required a means by which they could do so throughout the country, including at a village level. Aristophanes and his contemporary Cyriacus learned their trade at a time when these changes were being implemented at Djeme. They Page 189 →were trained first in how to produce the required documentation. For Aristophanes, this covered a range of taxation document types: demands, receipts, passes for safe conduct, and petitions to the pagarch. After 730, Coptic tax receipts disappear from the written record, their utility seemingly having run their course, although no record survives of what replaced them at Thebes. Despite this change, Aristophanes did not disappear from history. His training

received during the 720s was adapted for private means and influenced the language, form, and appearance of the legal documents that he wrote—sales, settlements, and donations. He taught this style to the next generation of scribes, led by David son of Psate. Aristophanes was a Coptic scribe: Coptic was his first language, and regardless of the origin of his name, he was part of an Egyptian rural community. He was not a Greek-speaking Egyptian, and his use of Greek fits within the context of Coptic and bilingual texts from throughout Egypt in the late seventh and eighth centuries, in his use of titles, formulae, and bigraphism.590 This is clearly demonstrated by his two tax demands, the first documents that he wrote, which find their closest comparisons in texts written further to the north, in the Hermopolite region. The titles that appear in his documents—whether new (amir), reimagined (strategos), or appropriated (Flavius)—were not simply a local phenomenon but part of a changing climate and the marrying of different cultural and administrative structures. The rarity of some titles gives a superficial appearance of a Theban phenomenon. In particular, the title Flavius, used by Aristophanes in reference only to Comes son of Chael,591 is not common beyond Thebes in the early Islamic period.592 Yet examples of its use do exist, including in reference to the Hermopolite pagarchs Johannes and Atias son of Goedos and the Heracleopolite pagarchs Cosmas and Menas.593 In Thebes, the Page 190 →title was used by scribes that form part of the same school of practice as Aristophanes: Isaac son of Zacharias (P.KRU 70.3, 4 April 750); Johannake son of Johannes (P.KRU 45.3, 24 April 739), Cyriacus son of Petros (P.KRU 50.3, 22 August 739), and Swai son of Philotheos (P.KRU 6.3, 14 August 758). All these scribes are contemporary to or later than Aristophanes. Postconquest attestations far outnumber the one earlier Theban use of the title, in reference to the emperor, in the testament of Victor, superior of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon (P.KRU 77.4, 4 December 634).594 With over a century dividing the uses of the designation at Thebes, P.KRU 77 cannot be identified as the source of the later use of the term. The reintroduction of the title Flavius at Thebes is, instead, further indication of the changes that were taking place at this time. Other than Comes son of Chael, the designation is only used with Arabic officials—Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh (P.KRU 45 and 50) and Joseph b. КїUbayd (P.KRU 70)—which follows its non-Theban use, as outlined above. It is even possible that Aristophanes’ and Swai’s use of this term in the 750s was a result of Comes’ appropriation of the term for himself.595 It is more likely that Aristophanes’ use of this term falls in line with his use of titles. This could also account for his reference to the dux in P.KRU 10 as the senior official there. The title dux did not occur in Thebes before Aristophanes used it, and his awareness of this term was part of the training that he received, rather than being evidence of Aristophanes holding on to old institutions and offices. The term is uncommon in Coptic texts but occurs beyond Thebes in the eighth century.596 By placing Aristophanes within his wider historical framework and not just in relation to what was happening in Djeme or western Thebes as a whole, it becomes possible to see how he fitted into the administrative infrastructure of the country. He was one of a series of Egyptian scribes trained in Coptic and Greek (to varying degrees in each) who became part of the bureaucratic machinePage 191 → introduced by the Arabs.597 Not only were they trained in Coptic and Greek, but they were trained in a specific style of writing for each language, as is evident throughout Egypt during the first century of the new rule. As part of this process, Aristophanes was initially occupied in the administration of taxation at a local level. After the phase of the intense use of Coptic for this purpose, Aristophanes moved from the public to the private world, from administrative to legal texts. The increasing Arabization and Islamization of Egypt meant that he was no longer required in this capacity. Yet, in the writing of private documents, he continued to make use of the training he had acquired in the 720s. His use of bigraphism, formulae, and rhetoric represent a move away from the practice exhibited by his Theban predecessors. Many aspects of his career remain hidden: where he worked, his connections beyond Djeme, how he learned to produce the range of documents that he wrote. But some things are certain. Aristophanes was part of a changing society and was involved, even if at the lowest rung of the bureaucratic ladder, in implementing the changes being introduced at this time. He was very much a scribe of his time. Understanding how and why he produced his body of work moves us toward a better understanding of why Coptic was incorporated into the official written record of early Islamic Egypt. Aristophanes’ evidence is entirely Theban but also entirely part of the Egyptian story of the eighth century.

Page 195 →

Appendix 1 Catalog of Aristophanes’ Texts All known papyri and ostraca written by Aristophanes are collected here, together with the texts within which Aristophanes participates in some other capacity. The texts are divided into three sections: (A) his papyri; (B) his ostraca; and (C) papyri in which he is amanuensis or witness. Texts are listed according to their most recent or definitive edition. Each entry is set out as follows: Inventory: The object’s inventory number at its current or last known location. Acquisition: The individual who gave or sold the document to the institution or from whose estate the document was acquired. The year noted is that in which the collection acquired the object (if known). That year is not necessarily the year in which the object was acquired in Egypt, which is also included when known. Contents: A brief overview of the content of each text. Attribution (sections A and B): How the text is assigned to Aristophanes. Role (section C): Aristophanes’ role within the document (amanuensis or witness). Bibliography: Specific bibliography for the document in question. Page 196 →

A. Papyri 1. P.Bal. 130 Appendix A Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4664 A. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1893. Contents: Tax demand from the office of Sahl b. ʿAbd Allāh to Daniel son of Pachom, for the poll tax and the expenses tax, which is divided into the expenses for twelve months and for the amir almu’minin. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography (bigraphism) and content (taxation). Bibliography: P.Bal. 130 Appendix A; P.Lond.Copt. I 440; P.Mon.Apollo I p.43 (table 7); Cromwell 2014.

2. P.Bal. 130 Appendix B Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4664 B. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1893. Contents: Tax demand written on the same date and for the same taxes as P.Bal. 130 Appendix A. All other particulars are lost. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography (bigraphism), content (taxation), and connection with P.Bal. 130 Appendix A. Bibliography: P.Bal. 130 Appendix B; P.Lond.Copt. I 440; Cromwell 2014.

3. P.CLT 3 Inventory: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, MMA, 24.2.6. Acquisition: Maurice Nahman, 1924 (sold to the museum in 1923). Contents: Request for a travel permit for three monks from the monastery of Apa Paul to travel to the Fayum to sell basketwork. Confirmation is given that they have paid their taxes for the year. A description of each monk is provided at the end of the request. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography (bigraphism) and content (taxation).

Bibliography: P.CLT 3 + pl. V; Crum 1932, 196–197; Till 1958, 184–185 = Pap.BГјrgschafts 24; Till 1964, 27–28. Page 197 →

4. P.KRU 8 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4881. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1895. Contents: Sale (ⲡⲣⲁⲥⲓⲥ) between Tanope daughter of Abraham and her children (first party) and an unknown second party, following a dispute before the amir Sulayman over the nonpayment of the original sale price of the courtyard. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 8; P.Lond.Copt. I 417; Till 1954, 98–100; Till 1964, 100.

5. P.KRU 10 Inventory: Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin, P.3138 + Warsaw P.3138V. Acquisition: Herr Filling, 1876. Contents: Sale (ⲡⲣⲁⲥⲓⲥ) between the children of Psate (first party) and the sons of Germanos (second party). After a multistage legal process, involving the dux in Antinoopolis and local officials, the first party sells half a plot of land to the second party, who already owned the other half of the plot. On the verso is P.KRU 76. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 10; SB I 5123; SB Kopt. II 946; Cromwell 2013b; Erman and Krebs 1899, 270–272; MacCoull 2009, 78–81; Stern 1884, 152–159; Till 1964, 102–104.

6. P.KRU 11 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 6721/9. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1906. Contents: Sale (вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ) of a one-third share of land between Aristophanes (first party) and Comes son of Damianos (second party). Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 11; SB I 5560; Schiller 1953, 362–363; Till 1964, 104–106. Page 198 →

7. P.KRU 14 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4868. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1895. Contents: Sale (ⲡⲣⲁⲥⲓⲥ) of a house between Papas son of Theodoros (first party) and Aaron son of Shenoute (second party). Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: CPR III 190; P.KRU 14; P.Lond.Copt. I 405; SB I 5563; Förster 2000, 108; Till 1964, 110–113.

8. P.KRU 15 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4871. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1895. Contents: Sale (вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ) of a house between Damianos son of Cosma (first party) and Aaron son of Shenoute (second party).

Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: CPR III 193; P.KRU 15; P.Lond.Copt. I 407; SB I 5564; Förster 2000, 108; Till 1964, 113–115.

9. P.KRU 17 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4877. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1895. Contents: Sale (вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ) between Shenoute son of Phoibammon (first party) and Nonne daughter of Petros(?)(second party), used to record the transfer of a marriage gift (вІҐвІ-вІЃвІ§) comprising a house that had previously belonged to Phoibammon. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 17; P.Lond.Copt. I 413; SB I 5565; FГ¶rster 2000, 108; MacCoull 2009, 111–112; Till 1954, 102–103; Till 1964, 115–116.

10. P.KRU 25 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 6721/3. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1906. Contents: Sale (вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ), resulting from a dispute, between Daniel son of Page 199 →Isidore (first party) and Abessa daughter of Zacharias (second party). The first party sells half of a substantial property holding, comprising a house, a courtyard, and a workroom, which he had originally purchased from her. The sale price includes a penalty paid by Abessa for reneging on the original sale. P.KRU 47 also concerns this dispute. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 25; SB I 5568; FГ¶rster 2000, 109; Schiller 1953, 345–347; Till 1964, 123–124; Varenbergh 1949, 179–180; Wilfong 2002, 82–84.

11. P.KRU 26 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 6721/8 (recto). Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1906. Contents: Sale (ⲡⲣⲁⲥⲓⲥ) of one room between Zenon (first party) and Tagape daughter of Eutychios (second party) following the division of inherited property. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 26; SB I 5569; Schiller 1953, 356–357; Till 1954, 109–110; Varenbergh 1949, 180–181; Wilfong 2002, 68.

12. P.KRU 27 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4883. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1895. Contents: Sale (ⲡⲣⲁⲥⲓⲥ) of a loom between Ananias son of Pses (first party) and Petros son of Zacharias (second party). Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 27; P.Lond.Copt. I 419; SB I 5570; Förster 2000, 109; MacCoull 2009, 141–143; Till 1964, 124–126; Wilfong 2002, 135.

13. P.KRU 33 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4876. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1895. Contents: A sale (вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ“вІҐ), almost completely destroyed. None of the particulars survive.

Attribution: Notation lost; attribution based on paleography. Bibliography: P.KRU 33; P.Lond.Copt. I 412; Till 1964, 131–132. Page 200 →

14. P.KRU 39 Inventory: British Library, London, Papyrus CIV. Acquisition: David Brewer (I believe this name, recorded in the introduction to P.Lond.Copt. I 422, is a misreading of the name David Bremner in the acquisition register; Bremner sold items from the estate of Alexander Henry Rhind), 1863. Contents: Settlement (ⲇⲓⲁⲗⲩⲥⲓⲥ) between the children of Germanos (first party) and Shenoute son of Germanos (second party), recording Shenoute’s inheritance from his father’s house. Shenoute received the room off the entrance room, one-quarter of the room accessed from the front door, and one-sixth and one-third, respectively, of two storage rooms on upper floors of the building. Provisions are made concerning access to the property, namely, that the veranda and its adjoining stairs are held in common. P.KRU 40 is the parallel to this document. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 3; P.Lond.Copt. I 422; SB I 5574; Cromwell 2013b; Förster 2000, 109; Till 1954, 124–126; Till 1964, 132.

15. P.KRU 40 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, E. 5134. Acquisition: Jean Henri Hoffmann, 1886 (bought at sale; the item does not appear in the 1886 catalog compiled by Legrain). Contents: Settlement (вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІҐвІ“вІҐ) between the children of Germanos (first party) and Stephanos son of Germanos (second party), recording Stephanos’ inheritance from his father’s house. Stephanos received the “middle room” under the stairs, half of a storage area and one-third of the room in front of it, and one-quarter of the storage room above it. Provisions are made concerning access to the property, namely, that the veranda and its adjoining stairs are held in common. P.KRU 39 is the parallel to this document. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 40; SB I 5575; Boud’hors 2004, 65 + image; Chaserant, Leyge, and Heckenbenner 2009, no. 48 + image; Institut du monde arabe 2000, no. 99 (+ image); Till 1954, 127–128. Page 201 →

16. P.KRU 41 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 6462. Acquisition: Mihran Sivadjian, 1902. Contents: Settlement (ⲇⲓⲁⲗⲩⲥⲓⲥ) between Epiphanius son of Pcher (first party) and Swai son of Severos (second party) concerning the inheritance of the late Pcher. Swai received the “new house,” further property in the land of the house of Pators, and half the “courtyard of the dux.” Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: CPR III 117; P.KRU 41; P.Lond.Copt. I 1011; SB I 5576; Förster 2000, 109; Till 1954, 128–131; Till 1964, 132–133.

17. P.KRU 43 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, E. 7986.

Acquisition: Rousset Bey, 1868 (this French accountant formed his collection in 1845, while auditing the Egyptian government’s accounts and finances). Contents: Settlement (designation lost) between the children of Cosma (the first party) and the daughters of Catharine and Victorine daughter of Chael (the second party). In the first property, the second party received what may be an internal courtyard and the storage room beside the entrance room; from the second house, they received the veranda, a storage room, and a cellar. Attribution: Notation lost; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: P.KRU 43; Till 1954, 133–136; Till 1964, 133.

18. P.KRU 47 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 6721/5. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1906. Contents: Settlement (вІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІҐвІ™вІџвІҐ вІ›П©вІ“вІҐвІџвІ§вІ©вІЎвІџвІ›) between Daniel son of Isidoros (first party) and Takoum daughter of Zacharias (second party). Daniel transfers to Takoum ownership of half a house, which he had originally purchased from her sister Abessa, following the return of half of its original sale price. P.KRU 25 also concerns this dispute. Page 202 →Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 47; SB I 5580; FГ¶rster 2000, 110; MacCoull 2009, 85–87; Schiller 1953, 343–345; Till 1964, 133–135; Wilfong 2002, 67.

19. P.KRU 48 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 6721/1. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1906. Contents: Settlement (ⲇⲓⲁⲗⲩⲧⲓⲕⲏ) between Leontios and his siblings, Paulos, and Marcus (first party) and Thekla and Arsenios (second party). Thekla and Arsenios received two rooms in the house of Pyrgos. One room in the first of these opened onto another property, for which Thekla and Arsenios paid Leontios and company compensation for the disturbance caused. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 48; SB I 5581; Förster 2000, 110; Schiller 1953, 353–355; Till 1954, 144–146; Till 1964, 135; Wilfong 2002, 68.

20. P.KRU 52 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4660. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1893. Contents: Settlement (ⲁⲙⲉⲣⲓⲙⲛⲉⲓⲁ) recording the outcome of a dispute over property stolen from the house of Petros son of Comes (first party) by Daniel son of Pachom and Tanope daughter of Abraham (second party). The goods stolen amount to ten and two-thirds holokottinoi, which Daniel and Tanope are absolved from paying, as they are not able to do so. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 52; P.Lond.Copt. I 426; SB I 5584; Förster 2000, 110; Till 1964, 136–137; Wilfong 2002, 127.

21. P.KRU 53 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4665. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1893. Page 203 →Contents: Receipt acknowledging the payment of a loan of one holokottinos between Maria daughter of Isidoros (first party) and her son Colluthos (second party). Attribution: Notation lost; attribution based on paleography. Bibliography: P.KRU 53; P.Lond.Copt. I 430; Till 1964, 137; Wilfong 2002, 127.

22. P.KRU 58 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 1061 A + B. Acquisition: Stuart Glennie, 1871 (acquired in Egypt in 1862, according to the account in Goodwin 1863, 447). Contents: Acknowledgment by Isaac son of Abraham (first party) of a loan of two holokottinoi, taken out in order to buy a house. The house is used as collateral against the loan, and if Isaac fails to repay it by the end of the forty-day repayment period, the house becomes the property of the second party (whose name is lost). On the verso is an oath sworn by Isaac’s son Petros concerning the two holokottinoi, which Aristophanes did not write. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.KRU 58; P.Lond.Copt. I 428; SB Ι 5586; Cromwell 2013b; Förster 2000, 110; Goodwin 1863; Till 1964, 139–140.

23. P.KRU 87 Inventory: British Library, London, Papyrus LXXXVI. Acquisition: Henry Stobart, 1857 (acquired during his visit to Egypt in the winter of 1854/55, for which see Stobart 1855). Contents: Donation (вІ‡вІ±вІЈвІ“вІЃвІҐвІ§вІ“вІ•вІ±вІ›) of a boy, Petros, by his father, Georgios son of Marinnos (first party), to the monastery of Apa Phoibammon (second party). Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation, but he did not write the main text (an unknown scribe wrote the document, as discussed in chapter 3.3). Bibliography: P.KRU 87; P.Lond.Copt. I 385; SB I 5598; Biedenkopf-Ziehner 2001; FГ¶rster 2000, 112; Horwitz 1940, 27, 37, 57, 66–67, 87, 105–106, 115; Till 1964, 164–165. Page 204 →

24. P.KRU 95 (I) + 101 (II) Inventory: (I) Coptic Museum(?), Cairo CG 8725. (II) Current location unknown. Acquisition: (I) Source unknown, 1898 (sent by Auguste Mariette to Paris in 1876, with other documents; nature of discovery remains unknown). (II) William Hood, who traveled to Egypt between 1851 and 1861. Contents: Donation (ⲇⲱⲣⲓⲁⲥⲧⲓⲕⲱⲛ) of Comos son of Seth by his mother, Mariham (first party), to the monastery of Apa Phoibammon (second party). Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation (II). Bibliography: (I) P.KRU 95; P.Revillout 8; Crum 1902, 150–151; Horwitz 1940, 25, 68, 79, 92, 103, 114; Till 1964, 176–177. (II) P.KRU 101; Horwitz 1940, 62; Till 1964, 185–186.

25. P.KRU 103 Inventory: Current location unknown. Acquisition: Victor Goldschmidt of Heidelberg. Contents: Donation in which all the particulars are lost. Attribution: Notation lost; attributed to Aristophanes by original editor. Bibliography: P.KRU 103; Horwitz 1940, 70, 78; Till 1964, 186.

26. P.Lond.Copt. I 444/1 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4669. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1895. Contents: Legal document, type unknown. Only the first party, Ezekiel son of Elias and Moses son of NN, survives. Attribution: Notation lost; attribution based on paleography.

Bibliography: P.Lond.Copt. I 444/1. Page 205 →

B. Ostraca 27. O.Ashm. inv. 532 Inventory: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, O.Ashm. inv. 532. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1892. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for David son of Severos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Unpublished; being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis.

28. O.BM EA 31805 Inventory: British Museum, London, EA 31805. Acquisition: R. J. Moss and Company, 1899. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Jeremias son of Basileias. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Appendix 2.

29. O.BM EA 44848 Inventory: British Museum, London, EA 44848. Acquisition: William Ready, 1906 (uncertain). Contents: Safe conduct pass (вІЎвІ—вІџвІ…вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰). Attribution: Signature lost; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: Appendix 2.

30. O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 303 Inventory: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 303. Acquisition: Walter E. Crum, 1922. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Elias son of Demetrios. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Unpublished; being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis. Page 206 →

31. O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 521 Inventory: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 521. Acquisition: Walter E. Crum, 1939. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Onnorios son of Laleu. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Unpublished; being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis.

32. O.Col. inv. 154 Inventory: Columbia University, New York, O.Col. inv. 154. Acquisition: T. M. Davis, 1913; originally in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s collection (sold in 1958).

Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Daniel son of Philotheos. Attribution: Not signed; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: Appendix 2.

33. O.Col. inv. 160 Inventory: Columbia University, New York, O.Col. inv. 160. Acquisition: T. M. Davis, 1913; originally in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s collection (sold in 1958). Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Andreas son of Matthias. Attribution: Not signed; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: Appendix 2.

34. O.Crum 147 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, CG 8236. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Property parcel (veranda, storage area, front door, and stairs) of the property mentioned in P.KRU 39 and 40. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution by original editor (based on paleography and context). Bibliography: O.Crum 147; Crum 1902, 60; Cromwell 2013b; Till 1954, 94; Till 1964, 51. Page 207 →

35. O.Crum 422 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, CG 8283. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Philemon son of Joseph. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Crum 422; Crum 1902, 69; Till 1964, 67.

36. O.Crum 423 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, CG 8269. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Victor son of Samuel. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Crum 423; Crum 1902, 66; Till 1964, 67.

37. O.CrumST 415a Inventory: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 281. Acquisition: Walter E. Crum, 1922. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Onnorios son of Laleu. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.CrumST 415a; Till 1964, 226; edition being prepared by Nikolaos Gonis.

38. O.CrumST 415b Inventory: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 282. Acquisition: Walter E. Crum, 1922. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Onnorios son of Laleu. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation.

Bibliography: O.CrumST 415b; edition being prepared by Nikolaos Gonis.

39. O.CrumST 430 Inventory: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 288. Acquisition: Walter E. Crum, 1922. Page 208 →Contents: Property parcel comprising a cellar and a storage room, with reference to water containers. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution by original editor (based on paleography). Bibliography: O.CrumST 430; Till 1964, 228.

40. O.CrumST 444 Inventory: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 297. Acquisition: Walter E. Crum, 1922. Contents: List of names. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography. Bibliography: O.CrumST 444; appendix 2.

41. O.Duram inv. 1951.24 Inventory: Durham Oriental Museum, Durham, inv. 1951.24. Acquisition: Colin Campbell, 1951. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Swai son of Petros. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Appendix 2.

42. O.Fitzwilliam E.GA.6377.1943 Inventory: Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, E.GA.6377.1943. Acquisition: Robert Gayer-Anderson, 1943. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Mathias son of Pisrael. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Appendix 2.

43. O.Fitzwilliam E.P.533 Inventory: Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, P.533. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Appendix 2. Page 209 →

44. O.Giss. inv. 551 Inventory: Universitätsbibliothek, Giessen, inv. 551. Acquisition: Unknown, 1903. Contents: Tax receipt (expenses tax of the governor; Greek) for Psasou son of Abraham. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Unpublished; being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis.

45. O.Hamb.Copt. inv. V

Inventory: Staatsbibliothek, Hamburg, O.Hamb.Copt. inv. V. Acquisition: Unknown, pre–World War I. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Stephanos son of Pate( . . . ). Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Delattre and Vanthieghem 2014, 96 (no. 5) + image.

46. O.Herleen BL 278 Inventory: Thermenmuseum, Heerlen, BL 278. Acquisition: Carl M. Kaufmann. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Germanos son of Paulos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Sijpesteijn 1986, no. 4.

47. O.Hyvernat 17 Inventory: Catholic University of America, O.Hyvernat 17. Acquisition: Henri Hyvernat. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax; Greek) for Colluthos son of Mosaiou. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Unpublished; being prepared for publication by Chrysi Kotsifou. Page 210 →

48. O.Kelsey inv. 25077 Inventory: Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor, inv. 25077. Acquisition: Carl Schmidt, 1939. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Johannes son of Jeremias. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Appendix 2.

49. O.Kelsey inv. 25262 Inventory: Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor, inv. 25262. Acquisition: Carl Schmidt, 1939. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Psyros son of Elias. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Appendix 2.

50. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 24 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2254. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: List of names. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and presence of Aristophanes’ name in the list. Bibliography: O.Medin.Habu.Copt. 24.

51. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 1507. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Receipt from Trempou to Trakote for a dress. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation.

Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 + pl. II; Till 1955, 153; Till 1964, 210.

52. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 227 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2274. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Page 211 →Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Victor son of Samuel. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 227.

53. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 228 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2236. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Zacharias son of Joseph. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 228.

54. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 229 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2054. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Johannes son of Moses. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 229.

55. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 230 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 573. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Johannes son of NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 230.

56. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 214. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231 + pl. V. Page 212 →

57. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 232 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 874. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Apa Cyrus son of Enoch. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 232 + pl. V.

58. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 233

Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 3686. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Michaios son of Calpesiou. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 233.

59. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 234 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2275. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Onnophrios son of NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 234.

60. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 235 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 1905. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Papnoute son of Jacob. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 235.

61. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 236 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 562. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Pacham son of Pisenthios. Page 213 →Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 236.

62. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 237 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2968. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Patermoute. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 237.

63. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 238 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 1165. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Patermoute son of Psimon. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 238 + pl. V.

64. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 239 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2977. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Petros son of Severos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 239.

65. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 240 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 4004. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Swai son of Abraham. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 240. Page 214 →

66. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 241 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2007. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Psate son of NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 241.

67. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 242 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 880. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavations, 1929/30. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Ello son of Shenoute. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 242.

68. O.Petrie UC 32820 Inventory: Petrie Museum, London, UC 32820. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Papnoute son of Phoibammon. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Unpublished; being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis.

69. O.Petr.Mus. 559 Inventory: Petrie Museum, London, UC 62776. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Pisenthios son of Mase. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Petr.Mus. 559; Delattre and Fournet 2013, 166.

70. O.Petr.Mus. 574 Inventory: Petrie Museum, London, UC 32039. Acquisition: Unknown. Page 215 →Contents: Tax receipt (expenses tax of the governor; Greek) for Psyros son of Elias. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Petr. 468; O.Petr.Mus. 574; BL VIII 536; BL XI 301; Delattre and Fournet 2013, 167; Gonis 2004c, 162.

71. O.Torin. inv. 1450 Inventory: Museo Egizio, Turin, inv. 1450.

Acquisition: Ernesto Schiaparelli, 1900/1. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for David son of Severos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Unpublished; being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis.

72. O.Vind.Copt. 87 Inventory: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, O.Vindob. K. 668. Acquisition: Karl Wesseley, 1933. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Pisenthios son of Psyros. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Vind.Copt. 87; Till 1947, no. 21.

73. O.Vind.Copt. 88 Inventory: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, O.Vindob. K. 636. Acquisition: Karl Wesseley, 1933. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Johannes son of David. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.CrumST 79; O.Vind.Copt. 88; Till 1947, no. 22.

74. O.Vind.Copt. 89 Inventory: Г–sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, O.Vindob. K. 666. Acquisition: Karl Wesseley, 1933. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Shenoute son of Abraham. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Vind.Copt. 89; Till 1947, no. 23. Page 216 →

75. O.Vind.Copt. 90 Inventory: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, O.Vindob. K. 254. Acquisition: Hermann Junker, 1911. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Jeremias son of Basileios. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Vind.Copt. 90 ; Till 1947, no. 24.

76. P.Schutzbriefe 10 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 4444. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavation, 1929/30. Contents: Safe conduct pass (ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) for Shenoute son of Petros and Stephanos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.Schutzbriefe 10; Till 1964, 215.

77. P.Schutzbriefe 23 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 1426. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavation, 1929/30. Contents: Safe conduct pass (вІ—вІџвІ…вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰) for an individual whose name is now lost.

Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.Schutzbriefe 23; Till 1964, 216.

78. P.Schutzbriefe 27 Inventory: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Bodl.Copt.Insc. 294. Acquisition: Walter E. Crum, 1922. Contents: Safe conduct pass (вІ—вІџвІ…вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰) for Jeremias son of Basileios and his children. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.CrumST 432; P.Schutzbriefe 27; SB Kopt. III 1368; Calament 2003, 42; Till 1964, 228. Page 217 →

79. P.Schutzbriefe 28 Inventory: Coptic Museum(?), Cairo, MH 2495. Acquisition: University of Chicago excavation, 1929/30. Contents: Safe conduct pass (ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) for Psate son of Elias. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: P.Schutzbriefe 28; Till 1964, 216.

80. PSI inv. 68 Inventory: Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, PSI inv. 68. Acquisition: Ermenegildo Pistelli, 1910. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Johannes son of Shenoute. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Delattre 2002, 368; Pintaudi and Sijpesteijn 1990, no. 1.

81. P.Stras.Copt. 28 Inventory: Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, O.Stras. inv. G 1330. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Ananias son of Abraham. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Stras.Copt. 28 + fig. 56.

82. P.Stras.Copt. 65 Inventory: Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, O.Stras. inv. K 186. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Aaron son of Cyriacus. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Stras.Copt. 65 + figs. 102–103.

83. SB XVIII 14037 Inventory: Thermenmuseum, Heerlen, BL 333. Acquisition: Carl M. Kaufmann. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax; Greek) for Swai son of Jacob. Page 218 →Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: Worp 1986, 144–146 + table V.

84. SB Kopt. II 955 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12191. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN son of Petros. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 955; Boud’hors 1996, 161 (no. 2).

85. SB Kopt. II 956 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12192. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Solomon son of NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 956; Boud’hors 1996, 164 (no. 3).

86. SB Kopt. II 957 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12193. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Cosma son of Joseph. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 957; Boud’hors 1996, 164 (no. 4).

87. SB Kopt. II 958 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12194. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Colluthos son of Mousaios. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 958; Boud’hors 1996, 164 (no. 5). Page 219 →

88. SB Kopt. II 959 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12195. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 959; Boud’hors 1996, 164 (no. 6).

89. SB Kopt. II 960 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12196. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Elias son of Paulos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 960; Boud’hors 1996, 165 (no. 7).

90. SB Kopt. II 961 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12197. Acquisition: Unknown.

Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Papnoute son of Mena. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 961; Boud’hors 1996, 165 (no. 8) + pl. 4A.

91. SB Kopt. II 962 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12198. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 962; Boud’hors 1996, 165.

92. SB Kopt. II 963 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12199. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Johannes son of Jeremias. Page 220 →Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 963; Boud’hors 1996, 165 (no. 9).

93. SB Kopt. II 964 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12200. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 964; Boud’hors 1996, 165 (no. 11).

94. SB Kopt. II 965 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12201. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Andreas son of Nohe. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 965; Boud’hors 1996, 165 (no. 13).

95. SB Kopt. II 966 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12219. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN son of Petros. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 966; Boud’hors 1996, 165–166 (no. 14).

96. SB Kopt. II 967 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12203. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 967; Boud’hors 1996, 166 (no. 15) + pl. 4B. Page 221 →

97. SB Kopt. II 968 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12204. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Elias son of Paulos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 968; Boud’hors 1996, 166 (no. 16).

98. SB Kopt. II 969 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12205. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 969; Boud’hors 1996, 166 (no. 17).

99. SB Kopt. II 970 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12206. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Onnophrios (son of Laleu). Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 970; Boud’hors 1996, 166 (no. 18).

100. SB Kopt. II 971 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12207. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Jacob son of Papnoute. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 971; Boud’hors 1996, 166 (no. 19) + pl. 4C.

101. SB Kopt. II 972 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12208. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Samuel son of Papas. Page 222 →Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 972; Boud’hors 1996, 166 (no. 20).

102. SB Kopt. II 973 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12209. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Johannes son of Epiphanius. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 973; Boud’hors 1996, 167 (no. 21).

103. SB Kopt. II 974 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12210. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Elias son of Paulos.

Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 974; Boud’hors 1996, 167 (no. 22).

104. SB Kopt. II 975 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12211. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Petros son of Phoibammon. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 975; Boud’hors 1996, 167 (no. 24) + pl. 4D.

105. SB Kopt. II 976 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12212. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Athanasios son of Samuel. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 976; Boud’hors 1996, 167 (no. 25). Page 223 →

106. SB Kopt. II 977 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12213. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Apa Colluthos son of Lazarus. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 977; Boud’hors 1996, 167 (no. 26).

107. SB Kopt. II 978 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12214. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 978; Boud’hors 1996, 167 (no. 27).

108. SB Kopt. II 979 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12215. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 979; Boud’hors 1996, 167–168 (no. 28).

109. SB Kopt. II 980 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12216. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Shenoute son of Abraham. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 980; Boud’hors 1996, 168 (no. 29); Calament 2003, 40 + fig. 1.

110. SB Kopt. II 981

Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12217. Acquisition: Unknown. Page 224 →Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Germanos son of NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 981; Boud’hors 1996, 168 (no. 30).

111. SB Kopt. II 982 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12218. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 982; Boud’hors 1996, 168 (no. 31).

112. SB Kopt. II 983 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12219. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Pchas son of Elisaios. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 983; Boud’hors 1996, 168 (no. 32) + pl. 5A.

113. SB Kopt. II 984 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12220. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 984; Boud’hors 1996, 168 (no. 33).

114. SB Kopt. II 985 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12221. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Petros son of NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 985; Boud’hors 1996, 169 (no. 35). Page 225 →

115. SB Kopt. II 986 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12222. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN son of Victor. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 986; Boud’hors 1996, 169 (no. 36).

116. SB Kopt. II 987 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12223. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation.

Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 987; Boud’hors 1996, 169 (no. 37).

117. SB Kopt. II 988 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12224. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 988; Boud’hors 1996, 169 (no. 38).

118. SB Kopt. II 989 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12225. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 989; Boud’hors 1996, 169 (no. 39).

119. SB Kopt. II 990 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12226. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Petros son of Johannes. Page 226 →Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 990; Boud’hors 1996, no. 39 bis).

120. SB Kopt. II 991 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12227. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Abraham son of Germanos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 991; Boud’hors 1996, 169 (no. 39 ter) + pl. 5B.

121. SB Kopt. II 992 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12228. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 992; Boud’hors 1996, 169–170 (no. 39 quater).

122. SB Kopt. II 993 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12229. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 993; Boud’hors 1996, 170 (no. 60).

123. SB Kopt. II 994 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12230. Acquisition: Unknown.

Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN son of Abraham. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 994; Boud’hors 1996, 170 (no. 68). Page 227 →

124. SB Kopt. II 995 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12231. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN son of Victor. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 995; Boud’hors 1996, 170 (no. 73) + pl. 5C.

125. SB Kopt. II 996 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12232. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Papnoute son of Victor. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 996; Boud’hors 1996, 170 (no. 75) + pl. 5D.

126. SB Kopt. II 997 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12217. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Gennatios son of Constantine. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 997; Boud’hors 1996, 170 (no. 76).

127. SB Kopt. II 998 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12234. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Poll tax (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 998; Boud’hors 1996, 170 (no. 86).

128. SB Kopt. II 999 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12235. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Petros son of Elias. Page 228 →Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 999; Boud’hors 1996, 171 (no. 104).

129. SB Kopt. II 1000 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12236. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Swai son of Jacob. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1000; Boud’hors 1996, 171 (no. 108).

130. SB Kopt. II 1001 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12237. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (?). Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1001; Boud’hors 1996, 171 (no. 110).

131. SB Kopt. II 1002 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12238. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN son of Phoibammon. Attribution: Unsigned; attribution based on paleography and formulae. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1002; Boud’hors 1996, 171 (no. 111) + pl. 6A.

132. SB Kopt. II 1003 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12239. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Peret son of Paulos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1003; Boud’hors 1996, 171 (no. 114). Page 229 →

133. SB Kopt. II 1004 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12239. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Stephanos son of Shenoute. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1004; Boud’hors 1996, 171.

134. SB Kopt. II 1005 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12241. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Stephanos son of Abraham. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1005; Boud’hors 1996, 171.

135. SB Kopt. II 1006 Inventory: Musée du Louvre, Paris, AF 12242. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Elias son of Paulos. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1006; Boud’hors 1996, 172 + pl. 6B.

136. SB Kopt. II 1007 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, AF 12243. Acquisition: Unknown.

Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1007; Boud’hors 1996, 172.

137. SB Kopt. II 1008 Inventory: MusГ©e du Louvre, Paris, E 6262. Acquisition: Unknown. Page 230 →Contents: Tax receipt (expenses tax of the governor; Greek) for Johannes son of Pisenthios. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB XXIV 16079; SB Kopt. II 1008; Boud’hors 1996, 172–173 + pl. 6C; Gonis 1999, 332.

138. SB Kopt. II 1022 Inventory: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, O.Yale inv. 34. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1931(?). Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Stephanos son of Abraham. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1022; Bagnall 1979, 8 (no. 6).

139. SB Kopt. II 1023 Inventory: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, O.Yale inv. 36. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1931(?). Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Psate son of Pshenoute. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1023; Bagnall 1979, 8–9 (no. 7).

140. SB Kopt. II 1024 Inventory: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, O.Yale inv. 37. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1931(?). Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Severos son of Sergios. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1024; Bagnall 1979, 9 (no. 8).

141. SB Kopt. II 1025 Inventory: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, O.Yale inv. 33. Page 231 →Acquisition: Unknown source, 1931(?). Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Phoibammon son of Theodoros. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: SB Kopt. II 1025; Bagnall 1979, 9–10 (no. 9).

142. SB Kopt. III 1424 Inventory: British Museum, London, EA 44728. Acquisition: William Ready, 1906. Contents: Tax receipt (poll tax) for Psate son of NN. Attribution: Aristophanes’ notation. Bibliography: O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 15 + table 16; SB Kopt. III 1424; Delattre 2002, 365; Gonis 2004c, 159.

C. Papyri with Aristophanes as Amanuensis or Witness 143. P.CLT 6 Inventory: Current location unknown. Acquisition: Georg Steindorff, 1913 (purchased from Walter E. Crum). Contents: Communal agreement (ϩⲟⲙⲟⲗⲟⲅⲓⲁ ⲛ̅ⲕⲟⲓⲛⲱⲛⲓⲕⲟⲛ, etc.) concerning the naval duty. Role: Amanuensis. Bibliography: P.CLT 6; Crum 1932, 196–197; Till 1964, 34–37; Till and Steinwenter 1933, 312–313; Worrell and Youtie 1932, 379.

144. P.KRU 30 Inventory: Museo Borgiano, Vatican. Acquisition: Unknown. Contents: Deed of sale following a dispute before the amir. Role: Amanuensis. Bibliography: P.KRU 30; Ciasca 1881 (no. 8); Till 1964, 129–130. Page 232 →

145. P.KRU 45 Inventory: Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin, P. 10607. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1906. Contents: Settlement (ⲇⲓⲁⲗⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲙⲙⲉⲣⲓⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲓⲙⲛⲉⲓⲁ) between the sisters Abessa (first party) and Takoum (second party) concerning the division of an inherited house, recording Takoum’s share. An earlier dispute over the same property is recorded in P.KRU 25 and 47. Role: Witness. Bibliography: CPR III 107; P.KRU 45; SB I 5578; Cromwell 2011; Förster 2000; Till 1954, 140–142; Till 1964, 133.

146. P.KRU 46 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 6721/4. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1906. Contents: Settlement (ⲇⲓⲁⲗⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲙⲙⲉⲣⲓⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲓⲙⲛⲉⲓⲁ) between the sisters Takoum (first party) and Abessa (second party) concerning the division of an inherited house, recording Abessa’s share. An earlier dispute over the same property is recorded in P.KRU 25 and 47. Role: Witness. Bibliography: P.KRU 46; SB I 5579; Cromwell 2011; Förster 2000; Till 1954, 143–144; Till 1964, 133.

147. P.KRU 50 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 6721/10. Acquisition: E. A. Wallis Budge, 1906. Contents: Settlement (вІЃвІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІ™вІ›вІ‰вІ“вІЃ) concerning property redeemed from a monastery. Role: Amanuensis and witness. Bibliography: P.KRU 50; SB I 5582; FГ¶rster 2000; Till 1954, 146–149; Till 1964, 135. Page 233 →

148. P.KRU 116 Inventory: British Library, London, Or. 4661. Acquisition: Unknown source, 1893. Contents: Contract (ⲉⲅⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲛ) of care (for an aged father) in exchange for property. Role: Amanuensis and witness. Bibliography: P.KRU 116; P.Lond.Copt. I 439; SB I 5613; Till 1954, 212–231; Till 1964, 195; Till 1966, 313.

Page 234 →Page 235 →

Appendix 2 New Editions of Ostraca A. Tax Receipts 1. O.BM EA 31805 British Museum Pl. 11 110 Г— 80 mm 29 October 727 This poll tax receipt is one of a small group written by Aristophanes to Jeremias son of Basileios, all of which are signed by Andreas and Petros. Chronologically, this is the last in the group. 1.+ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) вІЃПҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§МЈ 2. П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• вІ“М€вІ‰вІЈвІЏвІ™вІ“вІЃвІҐ 3. вІѓвІЃвІҐвІ“вІ—вІ‰вІ“вІЃвІҐ П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› 4. П©МЈвІ›МЈ вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№ ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„ОїП‚) Оі П„ПЃОЇП„ОїОЅ 5.бј‰Оё МЈбЅєМЈ(ПЃ) О± бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О± + бЅЊОЅОЅПЊП†ПЃО№Ої(П‚) бЅЃ ПѓП„ПЃО±(П„О·)Оі(бЅёП‚) ПѓП„(ОїО№) -[П‡](Оµбї–) 6. Hd.2 +МЈ вІЎМЈвІ‰вІ§вІЈвІџвІҐ вІҐМЈ[вІ§вІЏ]вІ-вІЏ+ 7. Hd.3 +МЈ вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃМЈ вІ§вІЏвІ-вІ“ 8. Hd.1 + бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О¬ОЅОїП…П‚ 9.бј” МЈОіПЃО±МЈП€МЈО±МЈ 1.

The accompanying plates are reproduced without scales, as the supplied photographs from the different institutions were inconsistent in this respect. Page 236 →1. pap. вІџвІ©вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ/. 2. pap. ⲛ’ⲧⲟⲕ. 4. pap. вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ/; О№Оґ/; ОіО№/ ОЅОї. 5. pap. О±ОёП…; О№Оґ/; ОїОЅОЅОїП†ПЃО№П…; ПѓП„ПЃОі ПѓП„[П‡]. 6. l. вІҐМЈ[вІ§вІџвІ“]вІ-вІ‰вІ“. 7. l. вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ“(l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“). + Here is one tremis; it has come to me from you, Jeremias (son of) Basileios for your poll tax in the public taxes of indiction year 10, i.e., 1/3—one-third—nomisma. Hathor 1, indiction year 11. + Onnophrios the strategos consents. + Petros signs. + + Andreas signs. + Aristophanes has written. 2–3Jeremias son of Basileios is certainly attested in O.Vind.Copt. 90 (which Till [1962, 105] refers to as Stq. 24) and possibly in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231, in which the name is partially damaged. The safe conduct pass P.Schutzbriefe 10 was also addressed to him. 7 вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃ вІ§вІЏвІ-вІ“: This is an unusual signature by Andreas, who normally omits one sigma (вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ“) but not both, see chapter 4.2 (which also addresses Andreas’ less common writing of вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ“with final вІ“).

2. O.Col. inv. 154 Columbia University (acc. 9.16) Pl. 2 57 Г— 103 mm 25 May 729 This poll tax receipt is for Daniel son of Philotheos. Although the ink is faint in places, it is complete yet unsigned. The paleography, use of formulae, and occurrence of the signatories Papnoute and Dioscorus attribute it

certainly to Aristophanes (see chapter 2.1). It is one of three receipts that he wrote on this day, Pachons 30, indiction year 13 (see appendix 3). 1.+ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІЎвІЃПЈвІ§вІЈвІ“2. вІ™вІЏ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) вІЃвІҐвІ‰МЈвІ“МЈ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ› 3. П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџМЈвІ§МЈвІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• 4. вІ‡вІЃвІ›вІ“вІЏвІ— вІ«вІ“вІ—вІџвІ‘вІ‰вІџвІҐ 5. П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› 6. П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›)/ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О± Page 237 →7.ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„ОїП‚) бј•ОєП„ОїОЅ + О (О±)П‡(бЅјОЅ) О» бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі 8.бЅ€ОЅОЅПЊПЃО№(Ої)П… ПѓП„(ОїО№)П‡(Оµбї–) 9. Hd.2. + вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ‘(вІ“вІџвІҐ) вІҐ10. вІ§вІ‰вІ-вІ‰+ 11. Hd.3. вІ‡вІ“вІџвІҐвІ•вІџвІЈвІџ[вІҐ] 12. вІҐвІ§13. вІ-вІ‰МЈвІ“МЈ 1–2. pap. вІџвІ©вІЎвІЃПЈвІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ/. 6. pap. вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ/ О№/Оґ. 7. pap. ОіО№/ ОЅОї; ПЂП‡; О№/Оґ. 8. pap. ОїОЅОЅОїПЃО№П… ПѓП„П‡. 9. pap. вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ‘. 9–10. l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“. 12–13. l. вІҐвІ§(вІџвІ“)вІ-вІ‰вІ“. + Here is one-half tremis; it has come to us from you, Daniel (son of) Philotheos, for your poll tax in the public taxes of indiction year 11, i.e., 1/6—one-sixth—nomisma. + Pachons 30, indiction year 13. Onnophrios consents. + Papnoute signs. + Dioscorus signs. 4This is the only attestation of Daniel son of Philotheos. 7Of the three receipts that Aristophanes wrote on Pachons 30, Onnophrios (for whom see the comment to line 8) also occurs as strategos in O.Crum 422 and O.Medin.HabuCopt. 239. 8ОїОЅОЅОїПЃО№ П…: The writing is clear and is the same spelling as that in O.Crum 422. I take this as a variant spelling of бЅ€ОЅОЅПЊП†ПЃО№ОїП‚ (also inO.Crum 422 and SB XVIII 14037.4), with an omitted letter phi. 11–13It is possible that the text missing at the end of lines 11 and 12 is the result of Dioscorus running out of space at the tip of the ostracon, rather than of the text being lost through damage.

3. O.Col. inv. 160 Columbia University (acc. 9.22) Pl. 3 84 Г— 105 mm 11 May 727 Page 238 →This poll tax receipt, written for Andreas son of Matthias, is unsigned but certainly written by Aristophanes (see chapter 2.1). The surface is effaced in certain areas, resulting in only minimal loss of text. Traces on the reverse indicate that this receipt belongs to the group of countersigned receipts (the majority of which are signed by Abraham; see chapter 4.3), but the name and other details cannot be read. 1.+ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІЎвІЏПЈвІ‰ вІ›П©вІџвІ—вІџвІ•(вІџвІ§вІ§вІ“вІ›вІџвІҐ) 2. вІЃМЈвІҐМЈвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ› П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›3. вІ§вІџвІ• вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐ вІ™вІЃвІ‘вІЃвІ“вІџвІҐ 4. П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏ5.[ вІ™вІџ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) бј°](ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№ ОіМЈОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„ОїП‚) рђ…µ бј¤ОјО№ПѓП… + О (О±П‡)- = бЅј(ОЅ) О№П› бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О± +

6.ОЈОїО»ОїОјбЅјОЅ бЅЃ ПѓП„ПЃО±(П„О·ОібЅёП‚) ПѓП„(ОїО№)П‡(Оµбї–) 7. Hd.2 [вІЎвІ‰]вІ§МЈвІЈвІџвІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ‰+ 8. Hd.3 [вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰]вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ‰ 1. pap. вІ›П©вІџвІ—вІџвІ•/ 5. pap. [О№]/Оґ О№ ОіМЈО№МЈ/ ОЅОї. 6. pap. ПЂП‰; бј°Оґ; ПѓП„ПЃО± ПѓП„П‡. 7. l. [вІЎвІ‰]вІ§МЈвІЈвІџвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ‰(l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“). 8. l. [вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰]вІЃвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ‰(l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“). + Here is one-half holokoittonos; it has come to us from you, Andreas (son of) Matthias, for your poll tax in the public taxes of indiction year 10, i.e., 1/2—one-half—nomisma. + Pachons 16, indiction year 11. Solomon the strategos consents. Petros signs. + Andreas signs. 3An Andreas son of Matthias is the first party in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 59, a promise to repay a loan of two tremises. In this text, Andreas is stated as from Terkot (вІ§вІ‰вІЈвІ•вІ±вІ§), in the Hermonthite nome. As Andreas and Matthias are common names, it is unlikely that these two men are the same individual. However, it is not impossible that they are the same person and that, while originally from Terkot, he now resides in Djeme and is reckoned among the taxpayers of the village. 5The beginning of the line can be reconstructed with certainty, as this is the standard formula employed by Aristophanes (see chapter 4.2). Page 239 →6Solomon appears as strategos in several receipts by Aristophanes. This is the only one bearing his name on Pachons 16; see appendix 3. 7This is a rare example of dittography by Petros in his signature; see chapter 4.2 for further discussion.

4. O.Durom inv. 1951.24 Durham Oriental Museum Pl. 4 88 Г— 96 31 May 728 This poll tax receipt, for Swai son of Petros, is broken at the top right, which has resulted in the loss of the end of lines 1–4. The loss has been to the formulaic elements of the receipt, and the text can be reconstructed with certainty. 1.+ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІЎвІЏПЈвІ‰ вІ›П©вІџвІ—вІџвІ•МЈ[(вІџвІ§вІ§вІ“вІ›вІџвІҐ) вІЃвІҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ›] 2. П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• вІҐвІџвІ©вІЃвІ“М€вІЎвІ‰МЈвІ§МЈ[вІЈвІџвІҐ П©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•-] 3. вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) [О№О± ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„ОїП‚) рђ…µ ἥμισυ] 4.О (О±)П…(ОЅОµ) П› бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі. ОЈО±ОјОїП…бЅґО» бЅЃ ПѓП„ПЃ(О±П„О·)Оі(бЅёП‚) [ПѓП„(ОїО№)П‡(Оµбї–)] 5.Hd. 2. + вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІЈвІџвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІ‰МЈвІ-вІ‰МЈ 6.Hd. 3. + вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐМЈвІ§(вІЏ)вІ-МЈ(вІ‰) 7.Hd. 1. + бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†О¬ОЅОїП…П‚ 8.бј”ОіПЃО±П€О± 3. pap. вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ/ О№/[Оґ]. 4. pap. ПЂП…; О№/Оґ; ПѓП„ПЃОіМЈ. 5. l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“. 6. l. вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐ вІҐвІ§(вІЏ)вІ-(вІ‰) (l. вІҐвІ§(вІџвІ“)вІ-(вІ‰вІ“)). + Here is one-half holokoittinos; it has come to us from you, Swai (son of) Pet[ros], for your poll tax in the public taxes of indiction year [11, i.e., 1/2—one-half—nomisma. +] Paone 6, indiction year 13. Samuel the strategos consents.

+ Petros signs. + Andreas signs. Aristophanes has written. 1The reconstruction at the end of the line, вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ› “to us,” may instead be вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§ “to me” (see chapter 4.2). Page 240 →2Only the first letter of the patronymic is clear, but the reading of вІ‰вІ§ is fairly certain. Swai son of Petros is not known from any other tax receipt. An individual with the same name is attested in P.KRU 1.118–119 and 125–126, where he acts as the hypographeus for the first party and amanuensis for two witnesses. There is a twenty-two-year difference between the dates of the two documents (P.KRU 1 is dated 25 February 750; see Till 1962, 17), and while it is not impossible that the two attestations belong to the same man, it is not certain that they do. 3The indiction year is lost, but as the receipt is dated year 13, it is most likely that the taxes are for indiction year 11, as is the case with the other receipts written in this year. 4This is the only receipt that Samuel, as strategos, signed on this day. 5 вІҐвІ§вІ‰МЈвІ-вІ‰МЈ: The two epsilons are not clear (the ink is thick and smudged). The first may be вІЏ, and the second may be a cross, as the вІ-is written superlinearly. Thus вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-+ or вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-+ are possible alternatives. 6 вІЃвІ›вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐМЈвІ§вІ-: Dittography of sigma is common in Andreas’ signature (see chapter 4.2). The final letter is unclear but seems to be a superlinear вІ-, indicating an abbreviated writing of this word. This abbreviation shows that the ostracon is complete here and that the damage is only to the top right.

5. O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943 Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge Pl. 5 81 Г— 68 mm 20 July 729 This receipt for the poll tax is for Mathias son of Pisrael and is signed by the strategos Cyriacus and by Papnoute and Dioscorus. 1.+ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) вІЃПҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџМЈ2. вІ§вІ› П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• вІ™вІЃ3. вІ‘МЈвІЃвІ“вІџвІҐ вІЎвІ“вІҐвІЈвІЃвІЏвІ— П©вІЃ вІЎМЈвІ‰МЈвІ•МЈ4. вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™МЈ(вІџвІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) 5.бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇОїОЅОїП‚) О№О± ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОіМЃ П„ПЃОЇП„ОїОЅ + бјПЂОµбЅ¶П† 6.ОєП› бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі ОљП…ПЃО№(О±)Оє(бЅёП‚) ПѓП„(ОїО№)П‡(Оµбї–) Page 241 →7. Hd.2. + вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ‘(вІ“вІџвІҐ) вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-вІ‰ 8. Hd.3. вІ‡вІ“вІџвІҐвІ•вІџвІЈвІџвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-вІ‰ 9. Hd.1. + бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„Ої10.П†(О¬ОЅОїП…П‚) бјёП‰(О¬ОЅОЅОїП…) 11.бј”ОіПЃ12.О±П€О± 1. pap. вІџвІ©вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ/. 2. pap. ⲛ’ⲧⲟⲕ. 4. pap. вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ›МЃ П©вІ›МЃ вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™МЈ/. 5. pap. О№/Оґ; ОіО№/ ОЅОї. 6. pap. О№/Оґ; ОєП…ПЃО№Оє/ ПѓП„П‡. 7. pap. вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ‘. 9–10. pap. О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП† бї–бї¶. Here is one tremis. It has come to us from you, Mathias (son of) Pisrael, for your poll tax in the public taxes of indiction year 11, i.e., 1/3—one-third—nomisma. + Epiph 26, indiction year 13. Cyriacus consents. + Papnoute signs. Dioscorus signs. + Aristophanes son of Johannes has written.

2–3This is the only tax receipt for Mathias, who is otherwise attested as a witness in P.KRU 48.68 (part of Aristophanes’ dossier). 4 ⲛⲇⲏⲙ̣/: No superlinear omicron (as is typical of Aristophanes’ abbreviated writing) is visible. 6There are a number of attested writings of Κυριακὸς by Aristophanes: κυρ / (SB Kopt. II 955.5); κυρκ/ (SB Kopt. 957.6); κυρκ (SB Kopt. II 981.8); κυρικ (SB Kopt. II 997.4); κυριακ/ (O.Vind.Copt. 88.5). The superlinear letter is κ with a lower limb that forms a looped ligature with an abbreviation stroke.

6. O.Fitz. E.P. 533 Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge Pl. 6 83 Г— 61 mm 23 July 727 Much of the text from the center of this ostracon is very faint but readable, apart from the name, of which only a few traces can be determined. Page 242 →1.+ МЈ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) вІЃПҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџ2. вІ§МЈвІ›МЈ П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• 3.[ МЈМЈМЈМЈМЈМЈ]вІҐвІЃМЈвІџМЈП©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•4. вІ‡МЈвІ“МЈвІЃМЈвІ…МЈвІЈМЈвІЃМЈвІ«МЈвІџМЈвІ›МЈ П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏ5. вІ™МЈ[вІџ](вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„О№П‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О± ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„ОїП‚) ОіМЃ [П„ПЃОЇ]П„ОїОЅ + 6.О§Ої(ОЇ)О±(Оє) ОєП› бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О± + ОљП…ПЃ(О№О±)Оє(бЅёП‚) бЅЃ ПѓП„ПЃ(О±П„О·)Оі(бЅёП‚) ПѓП„(ОїО№)-П‡(Оµбї–) 7. Hd. 2. + вІЎвІ‰вІ§МЈ[вІЈвІџМЈвІҐ] вІҐвІ§вІ‰МЈвІ-вІ‰ 8. Hd. 3. + вІЃМЈвІ›МЈвІ‡МЈвІЈМЈвІ‰МЈ[вІЃвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ‰] 9. Hd. 1. + бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†(О¬ОЅОїП…) бјёП‰(О¬ОЅОЅОїП…) бј”Оі[ПЃО±]П€О± 1. pap. вІџвІ©вІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™/ вІЏ. 4–5. pap. вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІ™МЈ[вІџ]. 5. pap. О№/Оґ; ОіМЈО№МЈ/ ОЅМЈОї. 6. pap. П‡ОїО±; О№/Оґ; ОєМЈП…МЈПЃМЈвІ•/; ПѓП„ПЃОі ПѓП„П‡. 7. l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“. 9. pap. О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†/ вІ“П‰МЈ. [+] Here is one tremis; it has come to us from you [NN] for your poll tax in the public taxes of indiction year 10, i.e., 1/3—one-third—nomisma. + Choaik 26, indiction year 11. Cyriacus the strategos consents. + Pet[ros] signs. + Andr[eas] signs. + Aristoph(anes) (son of) Jo(hannes) has written. 3The name of the taxpayer is lost at the beginning of the line. It may be possible, on the basis of what does survive, to reconstruct a short name followed by [вІ™вІџвІ©]вІҐвІЃ[вІ“]вІџ[вІҐ]. A Colluthos son of Mosaios occurs as taxpayer in O.Hyvernat 17 and SB Kopt. II 958. The name Colluthos is surely too long to be reconstructed here, unless in an abbreviated form. 6The name of the month is uncertain; П‡ is faint and slightly below the line of writing but is clear. Only one other receipt by Aristophanes survives from Choiak, SB XVIII 140347.3, where the abbreviation is П‡Ої.

7. O.Kelsey inv. 25262 Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor Pl. 7 75 Г— 110 20 August 727 This poll tax receipt is written for Psyros son of Elias (for whom Aristophanes also wrote the Greek receipt O.Petr.Mus. 574) and is an addition to his small Page 243 →archive of tax receipts. It is one of a large number of receipts that Aristophanes wrote on this day and is the third in this group signed by the strategos Solomon (see appendix 3).

1.+ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ [вІџ]вІ©вІЎвІЃПЈвІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) 2. вІЃвІҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ› П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• 3. вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• вІЇвІ©вІЈвІџвІҐ П©вІЏвІ—вІ“вІЃвІҐ П©вІЃ 4. вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІџвІ› П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) 5.бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№ ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅПЊ(ОјО№ПѓОјО±П„О±) вІ‹МЃ бј•ОєП„ОїОЅ + ОњОµПѓОї(ПЃбЅґ) ОєО¶ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О± 6.ОЈОїО»ПЊОјП‰ОЅ бЅЃ ПѓП„ПЃ(О±П„О·)Оі(бЅёП‚) ПѓП„(ОїО№)П‡(Оµбї–) 7. Hd.2. вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІЏ+ 8. Hd.3. вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІЈвІџвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІЏ 9. Hd.1. + бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†(О¬ОЅОїП…П‚) 10.бј”ОіПЃО±П€О± 1. pap. [вІџ]вІ©вІЎвІЃПЈвІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ. 4. pap. вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ. 5. pap. О№/Оґ; ОіО№/ ОЅОї; ОјОµПѓОї (l. MОµПѓП‰(ПЃбЅґ)); О№/Оґ. 6. pap. ПѓП„ПЃОі ПѓП„П‡. 7. l. вІЃвІ›вІ‡вІЈвІ‰вІЃвІҐ вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІЏ(l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“). 8. l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“. 9. pap. О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†/. + Here is one-half tremis; it has come to us from you, Psyros (son of) Elias for your poll tax in the public taxes of indiction year 10, i.e., 1/6—one-sixth—nomisma. + Mesore 27, indiction year 11. Solomon the strategos consents. Andreas signs. + Petros signs. + Aristophanes has written. 3Psyros son of Elias is the owner of a small archive of tax receipts comprising three Greek receipts (O.Petr.Mus. 571, 573, and 574) and two Coptic receipts (O.Kaufmann inv. 177 and O.Vind.Copt. 78). Nikolaos Gonis (who identified Psyros’ name in O.Petr.Mus. 571.1–2) proposed that these texts came from Psyros’ private archive, discovered together and separated after their discovery. This is unlikely, based on the acquisition history of the texts involved, which indicate that receipts were not issued to the individuals involved (see chapter 4.4). This receipt does fulfill Gonis’ prophecy based on the number of unpublished Djeme ostraca in various collections: “That we may hear more of Psyros’ tax payments in the future seems entirely within the bounds of possibility” (Gonis 2004c, 162). Page 244 →5бј°(ОЅ)ОґО№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚ О№О±: The final letter, the numeral О±, is open at the top, such that it resembles ОІ. However, given that the tax is for year 10, it is more likely that this is a variant form of alpha and that the receipt was issued in the subsequent year. 6This line is indented, starting thirty-three millimeters from the left edge. There is no clear reason for this, as no information is missing from the receipt. 7As a result of the position of the previous line, Andreas—after starting at too high a position—has to curl his signature under the previous line.

8. O.Kelsey inv. 25077 Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor Pl. 8 75 Г— 110 mm 729/730 This poll tax receipt is one of two that Aristophanes wrote for Johannes son of Jeremias, the other being for taxes of indiction year 10. The receipt is complete; yet the ink is effaced in areas, but the only loss is the date. 1.+ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІџвІ©вІЎвІЃПЈвІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) вІЃвІҐвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ› 2. П©вІ“вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ›вІ§вІџвІ• вІ“М€вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ 3. вІ“М€вІ‰вІЈвІЏвІ™вІ“вІЃвІҐП©вІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ•вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃМЈвІ«МЈвІџМЈ[вІ›] 4.бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О± ОіОЇ(ОЅОµП„О±О№) ОЅОї(ОјОЇПѓОјО±П„ОїП‚) П‚ бј•ОєП„ОїОЅ + бјПЂОµбЅ¶П†МЈ ОєМЈП›МЈ 5.бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі О¦О№О»ПЊОёОµОїП‚ бЅЃ ПѓП„ПЃ(О±П„О·)Оі(бЅёП›) ПѓМЈП„МЈ(ОїО№)П‡(Оµбї–) 6.+ вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџМЈвІ©вІ‘МЈ(вІ“вІџвІҐ) вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-вІ‰ 7. вІ‡вІ“вІџвІҐвІ•вІџвІЈвІџвІҐ вІҐ-

8. вІ§вІ‰МЈвІ-вІ‰МЈ 9.+ бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†(О¬ОЅОїП…П‚) 10.бј”ОіПЃО±П€О± + 1. pap. вІџвІ©вІЎвІЃПЈвІ§вІЈвІ“вІ™вІЏ/. 4. pap. О№/Оґ О№О± ОіО№/ ОЅОї. 5. pap. О№/Оґ; ПѓП„ПЃОіМЈ ПѓМЈП„МЈП‡. 6. pap. вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџМЈвІ©вІ‘МЈ. 6. l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“. 7–8. l. вІҐвІ§вІџвІ“вІ-вІ‰вІ“. 9. pap. О±ПЃО№ПѓП„ОїП†/. + Here is one-half tremis. It has come to us from you, Johannes (son of) Jeremias for you poll tax (of) indiction year 11, i.e., 1/6— one-sixth—nomisma.В .В .В . indiction year 13. Philotheos the strategos consents. Page 245 →Papnoute signs. Dioscorus signs. + Aristophanes has written.+ 2–3Johannes son of Jeremias is the taxpayer in SB Kopt. II 963 and also occurs in O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 46 /1.7–8 (a letter), in which he is referred to in passing. 4 П©вІ› вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ, which is part of the standard formula (see chapter 4.2), has been omitted. 4The end of the line is faint, but the date can be read with confidence with the exception of the final numeral. This is the same date as O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943 (no. 5 above).

B. Safe Conduct Pass 9. O.BM EA 44848 British Museum Pl. 9 65 Г— 70 mm Date lost; late 720s This safe conduct pass, one of the “word of God” texts, is incomplete: it is broken at the bottom and left. Based on expected formulae from the other documents of this type that Aristophanes wrote (P.Schutzbriefe 10, 23, 27, and 28), at least one-third of the original ostracon is lost from the left, but it is difficult to determine how many lines are lost from the end of the sherd. Although some standard formulae survive, the text contains some unusual features (note, in particular, the inconsistencies in personal pronouns), and the general state of preservation is such that the purpose of this document is uncertain. 1.[+ ПЂО±ПЃ(бЅ°) О“ОµПЋПЃОіО№ОїП‚ (ОєО±бЅ¶)] бј€О¬ПЃП‰ОЅ ОјОµО№О¶(ПЊП„ОµПЃОїО№?) ОєО¬ПѓП„ПЃОїП… ОњОµОјОЅОїОЅ(ОЇ)ОїП… 2.[ вІЎвІ‰вІ©вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ .В .В .В . В .В .В . вІЃ]вІ™МЈвІ™вІџМЈвІ›МЈвІ‰вІ“вІџвІҐ П«вІ‰ вІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІЎвІ—вІџвІ…(вІџвІҐ) вІ™3.[ вІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰ .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .]МЈМЈвІЃМЈвІЈ вІ‰МЈвІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• вІ™вІ› вІЎвІ‰вІ•4.[.В .В .В В .В .В .В .В . В .В .В . П«вІ‰ вІ›вІ›]вІ‰вІ›вІЎвІЃвІЈвІЃвІ…вІ‰ вІ™вІ™вІ±вІ§вІ› вІЃвІ—вІ—вІЃ 5.[.В .В .В В .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .] вІЃвІ“М€вІ™вІЎвІ‰МЈМЈвІ›вІЃМЈ П«вІ‰ вІ›вІ›вІ‰МЈвІ§вІ›6.[ вІЃвІ™вІ«вІ“вІѓвІЃвІ—вІ‰ .В .В .В .В .В .В .В .] vestig. ——— Page 246 →1. pap. ОјОµО№О¶О¶ ОєО±ПѓП„ПЃОїП… ОјОµОјОЅОїОЅОїП…. 2. pap. вІЎвІ—вІџ\вІ…/. [+From Georgios and)] Aaron, officials of the castrum Memnonion, [who write to NN? and? A]mmonios. Here is the assurance from [GodВ .В .В .] to you and your [.В .В .В because] we shall not confront you, rather [В .В .В .В ]В .В .В . In order that you are not [concernedВ .В .В .]В .В .В . 1Aristophanes writes this opening line in his Greek script; the use of the title ОјОµО№О¶О¶ (see the

following note), which otherwise only occurs in his safe conduct passes, and the designation of Memnonion (rather than Djeme) confirms his use of script. 1As argued by Berkes (2013), the abbreviation ОјОµО№О¶ in these protection passes should be for ОјОµО№О¶бї¶ОЅ, the equivalent of lashane, rather than ОјОµО№О¶ПЊП„ОµПЃОїП‚, the equivalent of the dioiketes, as in P.KRU 10. Aristophanes may have used this abbreviation for both titles, and so the transcription here should be ОјОµОЇО¶ОїОЅОµП‚; alternatively, he did intend ОјОµО№О¶ПЊП„ОµПЃОїП‚, and his use of the (perhaps unfamiliar) title is incorrect in this context. 1While the beginning of the line is lost, the use of the first-person plural pronoun on line 4 indicates that two officials were named here. In P.Schutzbriefe 27 and 28, Aaron appears together with Georgios, while Georgios appears together with Psate in P.Schutzbriefe 10. 2[ вІЎвІ‰вІ©вІҐП©вІЃвІ“]: This is the form used in P.Schutzbriefe 10, 27, and 28, for which see the discussion in chapter 6.2. 2The use of second-person plural pronouns in lines 4 and 5 (in contradiction to the singular pronouns in line 3) indicates that there were multiple recipients of this protection pass. If so and if the reconstruction of line 1 is complete, a short name + вІ™вІ› can be reconstructed here. Plural recipients of such passes are attested within Aristophanes’ own dossier. P.Schutzbriefe 10 is written to Shenoute son of Petros and to Stephanos, whose name is added superlinearly (perhaps even after the writing of the entire pass, which would account for the use of second-person singular pronouns in the text). In P.Schutzbriefe 27, Jeremias son of Basileios is addressed together with his children, who are not named. Singular pronouns are also used in this text, as only Jeremias is addressed directly. The same practice occurs in P.Schutzbriefe 40 (the scribe’s name is not preserved), which is addressed to one Marcus, togetherPage 247 → with his unnamed wife and children. Conversely, P.Schutzbriefe 54 (with no scribal notation) is addressed to four men—Stephanos, Papnoute, Shenoute, and Demetrios—and plural pronouns are used throughout. The situation here is difficult to resolve. 3In the lacuna, вІ›вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• is expected, as part of the standard formula here, and there certainly seems to be no space for the plural form вІ›вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ§вІЏвІ©вІ§вІЏвІ›. What follows cannot be reconstructed, as it is not standard and as the surviving traces at the beginning of this line are almost illegible. The preposition вІ‰вІ§вІџвІџвІ§вІ• “to you” is not otherwise attested in such texts; thus there are no parallels for the verbal construction that was written here. 4–6The closest parallel to this passage among Aristophanes’ texts is P.Schutzbriefe 10.3–6: П«вІ‰ вІ›вІ›вІ‰вІ›вІЎвІЃвІЈвІЃвІ…вІ‰ вІ™вІ™вІџвІ• вІЃвІ—вІ—вІЃ вІ›М…вІ§вІ›М…вІҐвІ‰вІ›вІ‰вІ—вІ‘вІ‰ вІ›вІ™вІ™вІЃвІ• П©вІ› П©вІ±вІѓ вІ›вІ“вІ™ П«вІ‰ вІ›вІ›вІ‰вІ•вІЃвІ™вІ«вІ“вІѓ(вІЃ)вІ—(вІ‰) вІЃвІ›вІҐвІ™вІ› вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ—вІџвІ…(вІџвІҐ) “because we shall not confront you, but are in agreement with you in every matter. In order that you are not concerned, we have drawn up this assurance.” Unfortunately, the level of variation within the small number of “word of God” documents that Aristophanes wrote means that what was written in lacuna and the surviving traces on line 5 cannot be reconstructed.

C. Name List 10. O.Crum ST 444 Ashmolean Museum, Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 297 Pl. 10 115 Г— 147 mm No date This list comprises two columns of male names, several of which have been erased, as indicated by localized areas of discoloration to the surface of the ostracon. In its original edition, only nine names were transcribed, in continuous text and not in the order in which they appear on the ostracon. A number of names that have been erased but can still be read are also included in the original edition. Due to the erasures and the scrappy nature of the writing, some names are especially difficult to read. A number of the names also occur in the Page 248 →list P.KRU 119, as well as in other name lists. On the possible use of this list, see chapter 4.4. Column A

1.+ вІЃвІЃМЈвІЈвІџ вІҐвІ‰вІ›вІ‰вІ§+ Aaron (son of) Senetom 2. вІЃвІ›вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЃвІҐвІ“вІ‰ вІ«вІ“вІ—вІџвІ‘Anastasios (son of) Philotheos 3. вџ¦вІ-—––⟧ вџ¦Ch—–—⟧ 4. ⟦–—–ⲙⲟⲩⲑ⟧ ⟦–—–mouteвџ§ 5. ⟦–—– вІ§вџ§ ⟦–––⟧ 6. вІ•вІ“М€вІ—вІ“вІҐвІ§вІ«вІ“вІ—вІџвІ‘Celistine (son of) Philotheos 7. вџ¦вІ™вІЃвІЈвІ•вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЃвІ•вІЃвІЈвІ‰вџ§ вџ¦Marcus (son of) Makariosвџ§ 8. вџ¦МЈМЈМЈвІ•МЈМЈ вІЎвІЃвІ©вІ—вІ‰вџ§ вџ¦NN (son of) Paulosвџ§ 9. ⟦–—–ⲧ⟧ вџ¦.В .В .В .В .В .В .В . В .В .В . вџ§ 10. вІ-вІЈвІ“вІҐвІ§вІџвІ«вІ±вІҐвІЃвІ—вІџвІ›Christopher (son of) Salon 11. вІ•вІџвІҐвІ™М… вІ«вІ“вІ—вІџвІ‘Cosma (son of) Philotheos 12. vestig.vestig. Column B 1. ⟦–––⟧ ⟦–––⟧ 2. вІ-вІЃвІЏвІ—вІ•вІџвІҐвІ™вІЃМЈChael (son of) Cosma 3. ⟦–—–ⲑ⟧ ⟦–––⟧ 4. вџ¦.В .В .В .В . вІ•вІџвІҐвІ™вІЃвџ§ вџ¦NN (son of) Cosmaвџ§ 5. вІЎвІџвІ›вІџПҐ вІҐвІ“вІ•вІ“вІЏвІ—Ponof (son of) Ezekiel 6. вІ“вІ±вІЃ вІҐвІ‰вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІ±вІ™Johannes (son of) Senetom 7. вџ¦вІЎ .В .В .В .В .В .В .В . вІ§вџ§ вџ¦P–––⟧ 8. вІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ•вІџвІ©вІЈ вІ‰вІ›вІџвІ-Mercurios (son of) Enoch 9. вІЎвІЃвІ›вІ“вІҐ вІҐвІЃвІ™вІ—Panis (son of) Samuel 10. ⟦–––⟧ ⟦–––⟧ 11. ⟦–––⟧ ⟦–––⟧ A1This first name is preceded by a cross (as is also the case in the other name list that Aristophanes wrote, O.Medin.HabuCopt. 24), showing that this is the beginning. The second letter is difficult to read, but вІЃ is quite certain, producing an uncommon writing of вІЃвІЃвІЈвІ±вІ›; the same writing is found in O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 46/4, while вІЃвІЈвІ±вІЏ occurs in BKU I 54. Perhaps less likely is the chance that this is an unusual writingPage 249 → of вІЃвІЈвІџвІџвІ© (the Coptic version of Greek бј‰ПЃО±ОїП…П‚). The superlinear letter at the end of the line is written to the left of final вІ‰. There are no other attestations of an Aaron son of Senetom. A2 вІЃвІ›вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЃвІҐ/ (O.CrumST 444): вІ‰ is clear, meaning that the preceding descending line cannot be an abbreviation stroke. Anastasios son of Philotheos is attested as a witness in P.KRU 6.35 and

appears among the names listed in P.KRU 119.36. A3Traces of a name, beginning with вІ-, are visible but cannot be reconstructed. A4 вІ™вІџвІ©вІ‘ is readable at the end of the line, suggesting a name such as Patermoute (вІЎвІЃвІ§вІ‰вІЈвІ™вІџвІ©вІ‘) as the patronymic. A5A superlinear вІ§ at the end of the line is all that can be read with certainty. A6This is the only attestation of Celistine son of Philotheos. A7The original name, вІ™вІЃвІЈвІ•вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЃвІ•вІЃвІЈвІ‰, can be read in full despite being erased, although the writing is faint. Marcus son of Makarius occurs as a witness in P.KRU 94.44 and as the first party in P.KRU 112.11, and his name appears among the names listed in P.KRU 119.26 and O.Crum 446.10. A8The patronymic вІЎвІЃвІ©вІ—вІ‰ is certain, but the first name is difficult to read. The original publication read вІЎвІ‰вІЈвІЏвІ§ (a Peret son of Paulos occurs in the name list O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 14c.18), but traces of вІ• are visible; no alternative reading is forthcoming. A9A superlinear вІ§ at the end of the line is all that can be certainly read. A10The text in the center of this line is effaced, probably as a result of the erasure of the previous line, but the reading is certain. Christopher son of Salon is included in the name list P.KRU 119.28. A11Cosma son of Philotheos is not transcribed in the original edition, even though the name is clear. This is his only attestation. A12This final name in column A is written on the bottom edge of the ostracon, and it is not clear whether it has been erased or not, as the discoloration is not the same as that which occurs elsewhere; it may instead be due to wear along the edge. Traces are visible, but no name can be read. B1Traces are visible, but no letters can be read. B2Chael son of Cosma was not transcribed in the original edition. The writing is faint in areas but certain. Chael also occurs in the name list Page 250 →O.Vind.Copt. 120.7, where the name is followed by the title papa (вІЎвІЃвІЎвІЃ). B3A superlinear вІ‘ with a long horizontal stroke is clear at the end of the patronymic. Other traces are visible, but no letters can be read with certainty. B4The patronymic, вІ•вІџвІҐвІ™вІЃ, is clear, but nothing can be read of the first name. B5This is the only attestation of Ponof. B6Johannes son of Senetom also occurs as the first party in P.KRU 16.13, where he is represented by his father, Senetom son of Joseph. B7The first name begins with вІЎ, but nothing else can be read apart from a superlinear вІ§ at the end of the line. B8Mercurios son of Enoch is not transcribed in the original, but the name is clear. He is not attested elsewhere. B9 вІ§вІЎвІЃвІ›вІ“вІҐ вІҐвІЃвІ™М… (O.CrumST 444): what the editio princeps read as an initial вІ§, which produces a feminine name, is the superlinear letter from the end of A9, lambda. Till (1962, 223) listed no other attestations of Tpanis daughter of Pisrael, and this name should therefore be removed from the prosopographic record of western Thebes. Panis son of Samuel is not otherwise attested. B10–11 This erased name is the only one written over two lines. A few traces are visible, but nothing can be reconstructed.

Page 251 →

Appendix 3 Tax Receipt Information A. Particulars (Arranged by Date) It has been necessary to abbreviate some of the information contained in table A3.1. Rather than “indiction year,” only “year” is written. The title “tax” refers to the amount of tax paid, and all values are given in relation to the holokottinos (i.e., one-third is one tremis, while one-sixth is one-half tremis); for the type of tax in question, see appendix 1. The pairs of signatories, in the final column, are so standard that they are referred to simply as AP (Andreas and Petros) and PD (Papnoute and Dioscorus), while the name of the countersignatory, who appears only in some documents, is given in full. Page 252 →Table A3.1. Tax receipt information Text Tax year Tax Taxpayer Pachons [year 11]: 26 April–25 May (727) O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231 10 1/6 Je(remias / Basileios?) Pachons 9, year 11: 4 May 727 O.CrumST 415a 10 1/3 Onnorios / Laleu O.Hamb.Copt. inv. V 10 1/3 Stephanos / Patem() Pachons 16, year 11: 11 May 727 O.Col. inv. 160 10 1/2 Andreas / Matthias Pachons 20, year 11: 15 May 727 O.Vind.Copt. 90 10 1/2 Jeremias / Basileios O.Medin.HabuCopt. 229 10 1/6 Johannes / Moses Paone 4, year 11: 29 May 727 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 234 10 1/3 Onnophrios O.Medin.HabuCopt. 236 10 1/3 Pachom / Pisenthios Paone 15, year 11: 9 June 727 O.CrumST 415b 10 1/6 Onnorios / Laleu Epiph 18, year 11: 12 July 727 SB Kopt. II 965 SB Kopt. II 970 SB Kopt. II 993 SB Kopt. II 1006 SB Kopt. II 969 SB Kopt. II 955 SB Kopt. II 981 SB Kopt. II 997 SB Kopt. II 1004 SB Kopt. II 989 SB Kopt. II 1003

10 10 — 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

1/3 1/6 1/3 1/2 1/6 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/6 1/3

Andreas / Nohe Onnophrios / — — Elias / Paulos — — / Petros Germanos / — Gennatios / Constantine Stephanos / Shenoute — Peret / Paulos

Strategos

Signatories

Philotheos AP Onnophrios AP Samuel AP Solomon

AP

Onnophrios AP Solomon AP Onnophrios AP + Isaac Samuel AP Onnophrios AP — AP + Abraham — AP + Abraham — AP — AP + Abraham — AP + Abraham Cyriacus AP + Abraham Cyriacus AP + Abraham Cyriacus AP + Abraham Cyriacus AP + Abraham Onnophrios AP + Abraham Onnophrios AP + Abraham

SB Kopt. II 975

10

1/3 Petros / Phoibammon

Philotheos AP + Abraham

SB Kopt. II 972 SB Kopt. II 983 SB Kopt. II 966 SB Kopt. II 988

10 10 10 10

1/6 1/6 2/9 1/3

Samuel AP + Abraham Samuel AP + Abraham Stephanos AP + Abraham Onnophrios AP + Abraham

10

1/3 Stephanos / Abraham

Samuel

AP

10 10

1/6 Elias / Paulos 1/3 Elias / Paulos

— Cyriacus

AP + Abraham AP + Abraham

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

1/6 1/6 1/6 1/3 1/6 1/3 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/3 1/3 1/6 1/6

Psate / Shenoute — Athanasios / Samuel Cosma / Joseph Abraham / Germanos Swai / Jacob Johannes / Jeremias Petros / Johannes Stephanos / Abraham Cyrus (Apa) / Enoch Johannes / Epiphanius Shenoute / Abraham — Psyros / Elias

Onnophrios AP — AP + Abraham Cyriacus — + Abraham Cyriacus AP + Abraham Onnophrios AP + Abraham Onnophrios AP + [—] Philotheos AP + Abraham Philotheos AP + Abraham Samuel AP + Abraham Solomon AP Solomon AP + Abraham Stephanos AP + Abraham Stephanos AP + Abraham Solomon AP

10 10 10 10 [10]

1/6 1/3 1/6 1/6 1/3

Aaron / Cyriacus Johannes / David Papnoute / Victor Petros / Elias — / Phoibammon

Samuel Cyriacus Stephanos Solomon —

10 10 10

1/6 — / Victor 1/6 — 1/6 —

Philotheos AP + Jacob Philotheos AP Solomon AP

10 10 10

1/3 Colluthos / Mousaios 1/2 Zacharias / Joseph 1/2 —

Solomon AP + Abraham Philotheos AP — AP + Abraham

10

1/6 Victor / Samuel

—

10

1/2 Severos / Sergios

Onnophrios AP

Mesore 3, year 11: 27 July 727 SB Kopt. II 1022 Mesore, year [11]: 25 July–23 August [727] SB Kopt. II 968 SB Kopt. II 960 Mesore 27, year 11: 20 August 727 SB Kopt. II 1023 SB Kopt. II 979 SB Kopt. II 976 SB Kopt. II 957 Page 253 →SB Kopt. II 991 SB Kopt. II 1000 SB Kopt. II 963 SB Kopt. II 990 SB Kopt. II 1005 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 232 SB Kopt. II 973 SB Kopt. II 980 SB Kopt. II 982 O.Kelsey inv. 25262 Thoth 9, year 11: 7 September 727 P.Stras.Copt. 65 O.Vind.Copt. 88 SB Kopt. II 996 SB Kopt. II 999 SB Kopt. II 1002 SB Kopt. II 995 SB Kopt. II 959 SB Kopt. II 992 Thoth 11, year 11: 9 September 727 SB Kopt. II 958 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 228 SB Kopt. II 1007 Thoth 13, year 11: 11 September 727 O.Crum 423 Paope 6, year 11: 4 October 727 SB Kopt. II 1024 Paope 11, year 11: 9 October 727

Samuel / Papas Pchas / Elisaios — / Petros —

AP + Georgios AP AP AP A[P]

AP

O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 521

10

1/6 Onnorios / Laleu

Onnophrios AP

PSI inv. 68 SB Kopt. II 971 SB Kopt. II 974 Paope 17, year 11: 15 October 727

10 10 10

1/6 Johannes / Shenoute 1/6 Jacob / Papnoute 1/6 Elias / Paulos

Stephanos AP + Patzarei Cyriacus AP + Abraham Cyriacus AP + Abraham

O.Petr.Mus. 559 Paope 27, year 11: 25 October 727 O.Vind.Copt. 89

10

1/2 Pisentius / Mase

Onnophrios AP

10

1/6 Shenoute / Abraham

—

10

1/3 Jeremias / Basileios

Onnophrios AP

10 10 10

1/6 Johannes / Pisenthios 1/3 Psasou / Abraham 1/6 Psyros / Elias

Stephanos AP Philotheos AP Solomon AP

10

1/6 Ello / Shenoute

Philotheos AP

10

1/6 Pisenthios / Psyros

Samuel

11

— Swai / Jacob

Onnophrios A[P]

10

1/3 —

Cyriacus

10

1/2 Phoibammon / Theodoros —

10 10 10 10 10 —

1/3 1/3 1/6 1/6 1/3 1/6

— — — — — — — — — —

1/6 — / Victor 1/6 — / Abraham 1/6 Solomon / — 1/6 — 1/6 — 1/3 — 1/6 — 1/6 — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — —

[—] + Abraham AP A[P] + Abraham AP + Abraham AP + Abraham AP AP + Abraham AP + Abraham — A[P] + Abraham

11

1/2 Swai / Petros

Samuel

AP

Hathor 1, year 11: 29 October 727 O.BM EA 31805 Hathor 5, year 11: 2 November 727 SB Kopt. II 1008 O.Giss. inv. 551 O.Petr.Mus. 574 Page 254 →Hathor 9, year 11: 6 November 727 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 242 Hathor 28, year 11: 25 November 727 O.Vind.Copt. 87 Choiak 9, year 11: 6 December 727 SB XVIII 14037 (Greek) Choiak 26, year 11: 23 December 727 O.Fitz. E.P.533 Pharmoute 20, year 11: 15 April 728 SB Kopt. II 1025 Year 11: 727–728 (Dates lost) O.Medin.HabuCopt. 240 SB Kopt. II 977 SB Kopt. II 967 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 230 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 241 SB Kopt. II 985 SB Kopt. II 986 SB Kopt. II 994 SB Kopt. II 956 SB Kopt. II 964 SB Kopt. II 978 SB Kopt. II 984 SB Kopt. II 998 SB Kopt. II 962 SB Kopt. II 1001 SB Kopt. II 987 Paone 6, year 12: 31 May 728 O.Duram inv. 1951.24

AP + Abraham

AP

AP AP

Swai / Abraham Stephanos AP Colluthos (Apa) / Lazarus — — — — A[P] + Abraham Johannes / Katote — AP + Abraham Psate / — Onnophrios AP Petros— — [—] + Abraham

Epiph, year 12: 25 June–24 July 728 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 233 Thoth, year 12: 29 August–27 September 728 O.Petrie UC 32820 Paope 11, year 12: 8 October 728 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 238

1/3 Michaios / Calpesiou

11

1/3 Papnoute / Phoibammon Onnophrios AP

11

1/3 Patermoute / Psimon

Psmo

1/3 David / Severos

Philotheos AP

11

1/6 Papnoute / Mena

Solomon

11 11 11

1/3 Philemon / Joseph 1/3 Petros / Severos 1/6 Daniel / Philotheos

Onnophrios PD Stephanos PD Onnophrios PD

11

1/6 David / Severos

Shenoute

11 11

1/6 Psate / — 1/6 Germanos / Paulos

Shenoute PD Stephanos PD

11

1/6 Papnoute / Jacob

—

11

1/6 Victor / Samuel

Stephanos PD

11 11

1/3 Matthias / Pisrael 1/6 Johannes / Jeremias

Cyriacus PD Philotheos PD

—

1/3 P[—] / Mouthaios

Stephanos PD

11

— Colluthos / Mousaios

—

—

11 11

1/6 Ananias / Abraham 1/3 Elias / Demetrios

— Cyriacus

PD DP

Page 255 →Tobe 7, year 12: 2 January 729 O.Ashm. inv. 532 10 728/729? SB Kopt. II 961 Pachons 30, year 13: 25 May 729 O.Crum 422 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 239 O.Col. inv. 154 Paone 19, year 13: 13 June 729 O.Torin. inv. 1450 Paone 29, year 13: 23 June 729 SB Kopt. III 1424 O.Herleen BL 278 Epiph 16, year 13: 10 July 729 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 235 Epiph 18, year 13: 12 July 729 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 227 Epiph 26, year 13: 20 July 729 O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943 O.Kelsey inv. 25077 Epiph, year [13]; 25 June–24 July [729] O.Medin.HabuCopt. 237 Paope 21, year 13: 18 October 729 O.Hyvernat 17 (Greek) Year 13: 729/730 P.Stras.Copt. 28 O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 303

—

11

AP

AP

AP + Abraham

PD

PD

Page 256 →

B. Corrections to Published Texts The original editions of many of Aristophanes’ receipts contain small errors. Rather than provide here a complete corrigenda for his documents, I note the changes that affect the information contained in table A3.1 and, consequently, the data used throughout chapter 4.

O.Hamb.Copt. inv. V

4О О±П‡(бЅјОЅ) Оґ в†’ О О±П‡\Ої/(ОЅ) Оё. The horizontal stroke of Оё is written low down on the body of the letter (which is a closed round form, rather than the vertical stem of Оґ) and extends to the right.

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 227 5 вІ“вІ›вІ‡/ вІ“вІЃ в†’ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі (date). The second numeral is an open V shape.

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231 4 вІ“вІ›вІ‡/ вІ‹ в†’ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№. 4The editio princeps does not make it clear that the end of the line, bearing the day and indiction year, is lost.

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 233 3The patronymic вІ•вІЃвІ—вІЎвІЏвІҐвІ“вІџвІ© does not appear to be correct. A name beginning вІ•вІЃвІ—вІЃвІ• seems to be more appropriate, but the complete reading of this unusual name is far from certain, so, for lack of a clear alternative, the original reading in the editio princeps is maintained. 5 вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ + вІ“МЈвІЃМЈ вІ“вІ›вІ‡/ в†’ вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІџ(вІҐвІ“вІџвІ›) бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О±. The tax year is correct in the editio princeps, although the editors confused the writing of the numeral and the abbreviated writing of “indiction.” 6The editors of the editio princeps were not able to read the month and day. While the traces are vague, ОµПЂ for бјПЂОµбЅ¶П† can be read. Page 257 →

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 234 4О№ОЅОґ / О№ в†’ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№О± (date). A letter following О№ at the end of the line is clear. Its open top resembles minuscule ОІ, but Aristophanes only wrote receipts in the indiction year after that for which the taxes are paid (Cyriacus son of Petros wrote receipts with a difference of two years).

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 235 6О№П› О№ОЅОґ / О№ в†’бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі. The final letter is faint but clear.

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 236 3 вІЎвІ© вІЃ в†’ О (О±)бї¦(ОЅО№) Оґ.

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 237 2–3The editio princeps reconstructs the name вІЎ[вІЃвІ§вІ‰вІЈ]|вІ™вІџвІ©вІ‘вІ“вІџвІҐ. However, it is more likely that this is two names, for which there is certainly space, based on the amount of text lost in lacuna from lines 1 and 3. 4бј„ПЂО± в†’ бјПЂОµбЅ¶П† [В .В .В .В ]. The full date is now lost, although “Epiph” is clear. It can be assigned to indiction year 13 on the basis of the signatories Papnoute and Dioscorus.

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 242 4The editio princeps omits the tax year at the end of the line: бј°(ОЅ)-Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№. No trace of a second number is visible.

O.Vind.Copt. 90 3 вІѓвІЃ*вІ“МЈвІЏ** в†’ вІѓвІЃвІҐМЈвІЏМЈвІ—МЈвІ‰МЈвІ“МЈвІЃвІҐ. The same taxpayer is attested in O.BM EA 31805, albeit there with a slight variant: вІѓвІЃвІҐвІ“вІ—вІ‰вІ“вІЃвІҐ. The writing here is very faint, but the positioning of the text on this line indicates the writing of more letters than the editio princeps indicates. Page 258 →5The writing of the numeral at the beginning of the line is not certain. There are traces here, but these are very faint, and there is no clear vertical stroke. Year 11 (О№О±) is also a possibility, in which case this document would have been written on the same day as O.Medin.HabuCopt. 229.

SB Kopt. II 988 6Оµ МЈПЂМЈОµМЈО№МЈП†МЈ О№ МЈВ .В .В . в†’ бјПЂОµбЅ¶П† О№[О· бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚ О№О±). As such a large number of texts were written on this day, the complete date can be reconstructed with some confidence.

SB Kopt. II 993 2 вІ‰МЈвІЎМЈвІ‰МЈвІ“МЈвІ« вІ“М€вІЏвІ“вІ‡/В .В .В . в†’ бјПЂОµбЅ¶П† О№О· бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№П„ОєОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) [О№О±]. This receipt is part of a group of texts written on Epiph 18, so indiction year 11 can be reconstructed with certainty.

SB Kopt. II 1024 5–6Μεσ κ. → Μεσ ο(ρὴ) κ[ζ]. As a large number of receipts were written on this day, it is possible to reconstruct the full date with some confidence.

SB Kopt. III 1424 5 вІЎвІ© вІ•вІ‘МЈ вІ“вІ›вІ‡/ вІ“вІЃ в†’ О (О±)бї¦(ОЅО№) ОєОёМЈ бј°(ОЅ)[Оґ](О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О№Оі. The indiction year is unclear, as the second number is mostly lost, but an open v-shaped letter can just be made out, indicating Оі not О±. Note that SB Kopt. III 1424, based on the corrections by Delattre (2002, 365), already includes many corrections to the original edition, O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 15 (which reads here вІ«вІЃвІ™вІџвІ‘/ вІ“вІ›вІ‡ вІ“[вІѓ]).

Footnotes 1. Scholars variously spell this name Jeme, Dscheme, and so on. My choice of Djeme lies mainly in personal preference but also in a tendency to transcribe the Coptic letter djandja—ϫ—as dj rather than j. 2. My secondary supervisor, Christopher Eyre, deserves the credit for bringing me down to earth in this respect and helping me to manage my expectations and define and refine the direction of my research more realistically. 3. This is a nod to the series title New Texts from Ancient Cultures, even if the majority of the texts were published (at least as bare editions, with no commentary) more than a century ago. As Terry Wilfong noted of his own volume in the series (which I mention below), “Coptic documentary texts on the whole have not been used much outside the field of Coptic Studies, and it is likely that at least some of the texts discussed in this volume will be вЂnew’ to most readers” (Wilfong 2002, xix). 4. The papyrus is part of a group that Prof. Andrea JГ¶rdens (Heidelberg) has been studying. 5. Leslie’s level of humor, too, is epitomized by an infamous T-shirt that she created, emblazoned with the motto “Papyrologists do it recto and verso.” 6. Verreth (2009, 127) provides a figure of 1,877 texts from Djeme, out of a total of 3,559 texts from the wider Theban region (including the east bank). This figure means that almost 20 percent of published Coptic texts are from Djeme alone (9,975 at the time of his study). After the Theban region, the best represented region is the Hermopolite nome, with 1,187 texts, the largest number of which are from the monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit. Djeme is unrivaled by any other Egyptian site in terms of the wealth of its Coptic material. 7. “Everyday writing” is the phrase used by Bagnall (2011) to encapsulate a body of texts that is not entirely “documentary” (i.e., legal) and not always “private” (see especially p. 3). The term also has the benefit of not excluding texts of a literary or subliterary nature that are pertinent to daily life. It is often more straightforward, though, to speak of these texts as “documents” in a general sense, without intending those of a legal nature. 8. These families and the studies on them will be discussed in detail later, especially in chapter 2.5 and chapter 5. 9. The terms Coptic and Copts are used loosely herein, following Wilfong (1989, 89; 2002, xx), to denote Egyptian-speaking Christians and their language. Neither term is used to indicate a specific ethnic group or is a chronological indicator. 10. Scholars transcribe the Coptic name variously as Jeme, Djeme, DjГЄme, Dscheme, etc. It is most commonly accompanied by the double loanword castrum (the Latin term for “stronghold” or “fort,” which arrived in Coptic via its Greek version П„бЅё ОєО¬ПѓП„ПЃОїОЅ, Coptic вІ•вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЈвІџвІ›), a reference to the town’s surrounding mudbrick wall. Its Greek designation, ОњОµОјОЅОїОЅОЇОїОЅ, is less common in the written record and almost entirely restricted to Greek sections of documents. For the dual name, see Westerfeld 2010, 103–110. 11. Herbert Winlock’s overview of the sites known to him in the early twentieth century provides the most extensive account of the extant archaeological remains; see Winlock and Crum 1926, 3–24. His account remains the standard work on the subject, but see also O’Connell 2007a and 2007b, especially for the reuse of the pharaonic landscape. Wilfong 1989 provides a convenient overview and bibliography. The most recent map of late antique Thebes is available in Pimpaud and Lecuyot 2013. 12. Excellent introductions to the history of the town are provided by Wilfong (2002, 1–22), and Wickham (2005, 419–428). The population size mentioned, proposed by Wilfong (2002, 13 n. 46), is, as he notes, a far more reasonable estimate than those provided by earlier scholars; see Wilfong’s references and, especially, the 18,860 proposed by Badawy (1978, 29), which would place the village on a scale with the major metropolises of Egypt. 13. Accounts of the excavation history of Medinet Habu and the removal of its Coptic remains are available in HГ¶lscher 1931; 1934, 1–3; 1954, 45–57. The plan provided in Wilfong 2002 (10, fig. 2) is a less complex version of HГ¶lscher’s original (1934, pl. 32). 14. The remains can clearly be seen during visits to Medinet Habu today and are also clear in aerial

photographs of the temple, for examples of which see Golvin 1983, pls. 27–28. 15. In chapter 5.2, I suggest that some textual references may connect houses to specific parts of the temple. 16. For example, Hector Horeau produced a watercolor of the courtyard, showing the scattered remnants of the church (Horeau MS 23.1). This is one of many watercolors that Horeau painted during his travels in Egypt in 1838; see Prada and Malek 2012. 17. This reconstruction, based on the surviving architectural features and parallels from late Byzantine churches in Egypt, appears in Hölscher 1954, 51–55. 18. Hölscher’s catalog of the individual houses (1954, 49–51) is incomplete, with only 34 of the 128 buildings having individual entries, which contain only partial information. Hölscher (1954, pls. 41–43) shows the layouts of Houses 3, 4, 8, 10, 41, 45, 77, 78, 92, and 101. Apart from Houses 3 and 4, which are almost square, with parallel rooms, the houses are long and narrow, with one room leading to the other. 19. For recent research on these sites, see Choat and Cromwell 2016. 20. The actual name of the monastery is not known, but it is referred to as that of Apa Epiphanius, after its most famous occupant and founder. Winlock and Crum 1926 provides a comprehensive overview of its archaeology and history. Its texts are published as P.Mon.Epiph. 21. Considerable scholarly attention has been dedicated to the history of this monastery; see, e.g., Godlewski 1986, 60–78; Krause 1956, 1969, 1971, 1981. Garel 2015 reexamines the textual evidence for the early history of the monastery, focusing on the testaments of Abraham and his successors. 22. The negatives of Carter’s photographs are held by the Egypt Exploration Society in London. The relevant identification numbers are Carter (sometimes DB Carter) 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 34, 37, 38, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, and 92. Apart from numbers 34, 37, 46, 48, 49, and 53, these are published in Godlewski 1986, 26–28, 30–35. Earlier visitors to the site (for which see Godlewski 1986, 13–20) include Robert Hay, whose plans and sketches are held by the British Library (Add. MSS 29,821 fols. 133–134, reproduced in Godlewski 1986, 14, 23). 23. Krause 1971, 109. 24. P.KRU 91 includes a date based on the Muslim system of reckoning years, the Hijra (for which see chapter 2): μ(ηνὸς) Φαρμοῦθ(ι) (ἰ)νδ(ικτίωνος) δ ἔτο(υς) Σαρακ(ηνῶν) ρξδ “Pharmoute, indiction year 4, Saracens year 164.” This date equates to the period 27 March to 25 April 781, making this text the last absolutely dated Theban document. 25. It is referred to as such in P.CLT 3, which Aristophanes wrote. 26. For the earlier thoughts on the location of the monastery, see Amélineau 1893, 128–129; Bell 1926, 266–267; Crum and Winlock 1926, 112, as well as P.CLT p. 16. For the identification of the complex at Dra Abu el-Naga as the monastery of Apa Paul, see Beckh, Eichner, and Hodak 2011. 27. Eichner and Fauerbach 2005; for the refectory itself, see pp. 143–146. 28. See the introduction to P.CLT 1 for the reconstruction of the history of the monastery based on the evidence known at that time (1932). Beckh, Eichner, and Hodak 2011 provides a preliminary introduction to the textual finds from the recent excavations, while more information is provided in Beckh 2016, which also deals with the history of the monastery, and in Hodak 2016. 29. For castrum (τὸ κάστρον), see n. 5. 30. Timm (1984–2007, 5:2196) suggests that Romoou was located south of Djeme/Thebes, largely following Goodwin (1869, 74) and Godlewski (1986, 83), who suggest a settlement either in western Thebes or, more broadly, in the area of Ermont. It cannot be discounted that it was located in one of the other pharaonic mortuary temples in the area, such as that of Seti I. 31. P.KRU 10 contains the last attested use of the term dux (δοὺξ) in Egypt; for Aristophanes’ use of this term, see chapter 6.4. 32. For Antinoopolis more generally, see the papers collected in Pintaudi 2008 and 2014. 33. For the date of this eclipse, see, most recently, Gilmore and Ray 2006. 34. This is laid out in detail in chapter 2. 35. As most recently stressed by O’Connell (2014, 1 n. 1), the designation “early Islamic” for this period is problematic: “it gives the false impression that Egypt became Muslim shortly after AD 641.” This impression is certainly not the case, as the Christian population that produced the

documentation from Thebes at the heart of this study shows. Yet I retain the designation for convenience. On this issue, see also Bagnall 2003; Mikhail 2014, 2. 36. The early, disparaging opinion is exemplified by Bell (1929, 279), with his description of the Arabs as “a people of relatively primitive organization and with no experience of empire”; these opinions were repeated as late as Fraser 1991, 189. While Bell later softened his description, he continued to compare them negatively to their Byzantine predecessors (see, further, chapter 6 n. 52 in the present study). A positivist view is advanced by Sijpesteijn (2007a, 2007c, and, most important, 2013), who stresses that, by incorporating themselves into the existing Byzantine system without major upheavals, the new rulers helped ease the transition to the new regime, both for the native population, who saw no significant differences in their day-to-day activities, and for the new regime itself, which gained legitimacy through continuity. 37. In Aristophanes’ dossier, P.KRU 14, 15, and 41 begin with the Arabic protokollon, but he did not write it, nor did any other scribe at Thebes (the protokollon, connected to the production of the papyrus roll, is a sheet placed at the beginning of the roll, with its fibers horizontal and thus perpendicular to the rest of the document, which is written transversa charta). For the reuse of such protokolla, see Delattre 2007a. 38. Bell’s overview of taxes in his introduction to P.Lond. IV (pp. xxv–xxxii) remains one of the most useful analyses of the taxation system. See also Bæk Simonsen 1988; Dennett 1950; Morimoto 1981; and especially Gascou 1983. Papaconstantinou (2010) examines the difficulties posed by the papyrological evidence for the introduction of the poll tax. Most recently on the subject, Gascou (2013) looks at Greek evidence from the seventh century for the poll tax, and Sijpesteijn (2013, 172–199) presents the evidence for taxation for the first half of the eighth century. 39. See Godlewski 1986, 77 and references therein. Van der Spek (2011, 58–61) provides the most recent overview of possible reasons for the town’s decline. 40. The vast number of ostraca acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art during this period (most of which are now in the special collection of Columbia University) are a general exception to the rule, and it is possible to associate many with their original findspots, as demonstrated by the highly useful reference guide provided by O’Connell (2006). 41. The finds from Deir el-Bachit are discussed above. For finds across Sheikh Abd el-Qurna and Dra Abu el-Naga, see Antoniak 2010; Behlmer and Underwood 2010; Boud’hors and Heurtel 2010, 2015. For Coptic material from other Theban tombs, TT 223 and 390, see the preliminary report in Müller 2016. 42. The most exciting recent find—not just of literary texts but of Coptic texts in general—is the discovery of complete codices at a small hermitage, MMA 1152 (on the mount, south of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon), containing previously unknown complete Coptic versions of the Encomium on Pesyntius and the Canons of Pseudo-Basil. For their discovery and conservation, see Górecki 2007, 266–272; Kordowska 2008. For more detail on the Encomium on Pesyntius specifically, see Dekker 2010. 43. Wilfong 1989 (104–118) provides an overview of the range of texts found at Thebes (although this resource is now almost twenty-five years old, it provides the most accessible overview of the material, which more recent discoveries do not render redundant). See n. 1 above for the number of published texts from the region as of 2009. To these can now be added over eight hundred texts from TT 29 (O.Frange: Boud’hors and Heurtel 2010) and 440 texts from the monastery of St. Mark (Boud’hors and Heurtel 2015), from a total of ca. 1,400 texts from the site. See n. 41 for other recently published texts. 44. This is typical of documents of this period, which will be discussed in detail in later chapters. 45. See especially Fournet 2010; MacCoull 1995, 1997a, 2007a, 2007b, 2013. 46. The issue of the use of Coptic for legal texts—that is, of when and why this occurred—formed part of the doctoral research of Buchanan 2015, which focuses on loan documents. 47. Bagnall (2011, 153 n. 27) provides a list of pre-sixth-century texts from sites in the oases of the western desert. He refers to “substantial quantities of Coptic papyri” from Kellis, which include literary and nonliterary texts: P.Kellis II and VI contain Coptic, Syriac, and Greek literary texts, while the Coptic documentary texts are published as P.Kellis V and VII. Examples of early Coptic documents in the valley, although from a monastic context, are more numerous and include, for example, those in the bilingual archive of Apa John the anchorite, the provenance of which is unknown—the proposed identification of him with John of Lycopolis in Zuckermann 1995 is not conclusive; see Choat 2007 for Apa John’s dossier.

48. Few texts are given an early date in Clackson 2007, but the existence of an Old Coptic text (possibly to be dated to the second century) is of note. 49. An image of this manuscript is available in Bagnall 2011 (82) and in the online Berliner Pappyrusdatenbank of the Г„gyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung (P.Berlin 11746 verso). 50. A full edition of this document is not yet available but is being prepared for publication by Jean-Luc Fournet and Anne Boud’hors. A discussion of its date and its connection to Dioscorus and a partial transcription is available in Fournet 2010, 130–132. For Dioscorus, see MacCoull 1988b. For the archive(s) associated with Dioscorus (which covers the period 506–585), see Fournet 2008. For the Coptic letters in the archive, see Boud’hors 2008b; Vanderheyden 2012, 2015. 51. The dates of these texts are discussed in Fournet 2010, 130 (P.Lond. V 1709), 126 (the duplicate texts). 52. Possible reasons are proposed by MacCoull (2013), for whom the nature of these documents as property settlements is vital, as is the need for public display of writing to prove factuality. 53. See especially Papaconstantinou 2008, which, in addition to a discussion of Dioscorus, reflects on the broader linguistic changes occurring in Egypt at this time, not only in the documentary sphere, but also in the literary (homiletic) and epigraphic evidence. 54. From This, near Abydos, are the texts written by Paulos son of Megas, dated 592–616, for which see MacCoull 1995, 347–350; 1997a, 361–363. From Aswan comes the archive of the family of Patermouthis, dated to 574–613. For the Coptic texts, which are now designated SB Kopt. III 1293, 1394, 1395, and 1666, see Clackson 1995; Greek texts from this archive are provided in Porten 1996, D29–49, 51–52. 55. An English translation of this testament is provided in MacCoull 2000. 56. P.KRU 65 and 77 are the only published fragments from the testaments of these superiors. Until recently, the remainder of Victor’s testament and that of Petros were thought lost; for the rediscovery of these pieces, see Garel 2015, 2016. 57. P.KRU 77.2–5 (= SB I 4319.2–5): О•бЅђОµПЃОіО-П„ОїП… бј”П„ОїП…П‚ Оµбј°ОєОїП…Пѓ[П„Оїбї¦ ПЂО-ОјПЂП„ОїП… ОєО±бЅ¶ бЅ‘ПЂО±П„ОµОЇО±П‚ П„Оїбї¦ О±бЅђП„Оїбї¦] ОµбЅђПѓОµОІОµПѓП„О¬П„ОїП… бјЎОјбї¶ОЅ Оґ[ОµПѓПЂПЊП„ОїП…] бј”П„ОїП…П‚ Оµбј°ОєОїП…ПѓП„Оїбї¦ П„ОµП„О¬ПЃП„Ої[П…] ОєО±бЅ¶ О¦О»(О±П…ОЇОїП…) бј©ПЃО±ОєО»ОµОЇОїП… ОќО-ОїП… ОљП‰ОЅПѓП„О±ОЅП„ОЇОЅОїП… П„Оїбї¦ ОёОµОїПѓП„Оµ[П†Оїбї¦П‚ О±бЅђ]П„Оїбї¦ \П…бј±Оїбї¦/ бј”П„ОїП…П‚ Оµбј°ОєОїП…ПѓП„Оїбї¦ П„ПЃОЇП„ОїП…, О§ОїО№бЅ°Оє [О·] бј°ОЅОґО№Оє(П„ОЇП‰ОЅ)Ої(П‚) О·. The date is repeated in Coptic in P.KRU 77.8, which allows the certain reconstruction of the day: вІ‰вІ§вІ‰вІҐвІџвІ©ПЈвІ™вІџвІ©вІ› вІ›вІЎвІ“вІ‰вІѓвІџвІ§ вІ-вІџвІ“вІЃвІ•вІ›ПЇвІЈвІџвІ™вІЎвІ‰ вІЏ. 58. MacCoull (2010) bases this proposal on the presence of вІ›вІ‰вІ›П«вІ“вІҐвІЃвІ©вІ‰ вІ›вІ›вІЈвІ±вІџвІ© вІ™вІ™вІЃвІ“вІЎвІ‰вІ-̅ⲥ̅“our lords, the Christ-loving kings,” which she interprets as referring to pious Byzantine—not Umayyad—rulers, with the plurality referring to corulers (rather than this being a late, fossilized use of Byzantine epithets; the use of вІЈвІ±вІџвІ© /вІЈМ…вІЈвІџ “king(s)” and вІ™вІЃвІ“вІЎвІ‰вІ-М…вІҐМ…, which are absent from later oath formulas, may indeed support a preconquest date). On this basis, MacCoull identifies these rulers as Justin II and his coruler Tiberius in the period 576–578. 59. For discussion of the date, see P.CLT p. 9–10; Till 1962, 41. 60. I do not here mean administrative texts (e.g., accounts and receipts) from a monastic context, such as those known from Wadi Sarga (O.Sarga) and the monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit (P.BawitClackson, P.Brux.Bawit, P.Mon.Apollo, and P.LouvreBawit). Some of these texts certainly date to the eighth century and reflect issues external to the monastery itself, such as receipts and demands concerning the poll tax from Bawit (P.BawitClackson 1, 3–9, 10–12, 14, 22, 25). Other texts predate the conquest—although it is impossible to precisely date them in most instances (especially the Wadi Sarga material, the whole of which is attributed broadly to the sixth to eighth centuries)—and are concerned primarily with the internal organization of the institution in question. 61. For these demands, see, most recently, Cromwell 2013a. 62. Cromwell 2013a, 283–284. 63. The Coptic documents are published in P.Lond. IV.

64. ⲡⲣⲙ- literally means “the man of” but is used idiomatically to indicate a person’s origin. This and other location designators are discussed in Burchfield 2014 and 2016. 65. If he was originally from somewhere else but now living in Djeme, it is likely that he would acknowledge this fact, as was the case with the monk Frange in TT 29. Frange made it clear that although he was resident in Thebes, he originated from Petemout, about ten kilometers to the north and on the other side of the river: ⲡⲣ̅ⲙ̅ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲙⲟⲩⲧ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏϩ ϩⲙ̅ ⲡⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̅ϫⲏⲙⲉ “from Petermout (but) living in the mount of Djeme” (O.Frange 39.2–4; see also O.Frange 47.2–4, 98.2–3, 120.2–5, 142.2–3, 145.1–2, 201.1–3, 371.2–4). For further discussion, see Boud’hors and Heurtel 2010, 10–12. 66. Cromwell 2014–2015. 67. This is true throughout Egyptian history. Individual scribes have been identified, but work on their dossiers has been an ad hoc affair. Notable studies on scribes from the Pharaonic and Ptolemaic period are, on Butehamun and his son Thothmosis from the New Kingdom, Janssen 1987; on Amennakhte son of Hapu from the New Kingdom, Bickel and Mathieu 1993, Eyre 1979, and Polis, in press (including the detailed bibliography therein); and, on Menches of Kerkeosiris from the Ptolemaic period, Verhoogt 1998. Considerable potential exists for studies across time and space of the work of individual scribes in their sociohistorical context. 68. Richter 1998. 69. For Moses, see Boud’hors and Heurtel 2010, 22–23; Heurtel 2008a. The TT 29 texts also include a number written by Mark, priest of the topos of St. Mark, for whom, see Heurtel 2007, 2010. 70. Most of the 805 texts published in O.Frange are in Frange’s hand. To these texts can be added those published in Blouin 2011 and Boud’hors 2011. 71. Tsie, who identifies herself as Frange’s sister—although this is not necessarily a biological relationship, as noted by Boud’hors and Heurtel (2010, 19) and Heurtel (2008b)—wrote seventy-two texts (O.Frange 247–318). Susanne wrote at least five texts (O.Frange 353–357); a sixth text may also be in her hand (O.Frange 397). 72. On the project, see Calament 2012; Dekker 2011; van der Vliet 2002. 73. The title γραμματεὺς κώμης “village scribe,” from the fourth to eighth centuries, does not appear in this form at Thebes, and the local term from Middle Egypt, γνωστήρ, is not attested in Coptic nonliterary texts from any site (it does not appear in Förster 2002). The earlier Greek κωμογραμματεύς is certainly not to be expected and is not attested in Coptic texts. 74. This list excludes the occurrence of συμβολαιογράφος in Abraham’s testament, P.Lond. I 77.68–69 (noted above), as it was written not by a Coptic scribe and probably not by one at Thebes but by one from Ermont, the seat of his bishopric. 75. Examples include αἰτηθεὶς ἔγραψα ὑπὲρ “being asked, I wrote for” (P.KRU 65.98, 105.45) and the use of γράμματα to refer to the illiterate parties (P.KRU 65.99, 105.45). 76. Theodore’s Greek notation is also published as SB I 5589. 77. MacCoull (2009, 8) corrects his name from Dakianos to Damian (the normative version of Damianos) on the basis of a photograph. I follow MacCoull’s reading and note that Till (1962, 71) uses Dakianos, which is the only Theban occurrence of such a name. There are no other attestations of the name Δακιανὸς anywhere else in Egypt (the only entry for this name in the Trismegistos database is to this document). 78. Damianos’ Greek notation is also published as SB I 5608. 79. Till (1962, 71) suggests that this scribe may be identified with that of O.Crum 404v.5–6: ⲇⲓ ⲉⲙⲟⲩ ⲇⲁ̣ⲙ̣ⲉⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ “Written by me, Damianos” (the choice of Coptic script here reflects the editio princeps, although it may be more appropriate to render it as Greek). There are insufficient grounds on which to confirm this identification. This document (O.Crum 404v), from Jacob to Apa Victor (perhaps a deacon), concerns a huge sum of money—one hundred holokottinoi—and mentions various payments (ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲃⲟⲗⲏ, a term found in tax receipts; see chapter 4.1). Other than mention of Djeme (recto line 10), there are no

criteria that connect the two scribes. If the identification is correct, though, it provides another reason to read the name as Damianos, not Dakianos. 80. This is not evident in the published transcription but is available on the originals, both of which are visible through the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s online catalog (MMA 12.180.238, 12.180.142). 81. In a note to P.Mon.Epiph. 458, Crum suggested that the same scribe wrote P.Mon.Epiph. 163, 216, 458, 496, and 531 and O.CrumST 175. An image of the latter is not available, but while the others are in a similar style, shared authorship cannot be determined. Till (1962, 66) only accredits P.Mon.Epiph. 163 to Athanasios. 82. Petros’ Greek notation is also published as SB I 5611. 83. FГ¶rster (2002, 477) translates the term as “Rechnungsbeamter des Gaues,” that is, accountant of the nome. 84. Till (1962, 171) collected these references, noting that their attribution to Petros can only be confirmed through paleographic comparisons. Analysis of the originals, all of which are in the British Library, does support this, including the attribution of P.KRU 79, which has no scribal notation but was assigned to him by Crum in P.KRU Index VII: Schreiber. 85. The editio princeps needs to be corrected: вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІҐ is вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІ© (with вІ© a ligatured вІџвІ©, with upsilon above omicron); вІ›вІ§вІ±вІ›вІ‰ is вІЃвІ›вІ§вІ±вІ›вІ‰ (the alpha is clear). Petros’ writing here appears to be at a relatively early stage in his scribal training, being marked by a degree of inconsistency in size and evenness that is not found in the other passages. 86. This is transcribed as Coptic in the editio princeps, but the use of language here—especially П…бј±бЅёП‚ (rather than ПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰) and ОњОµОјОЅП‰ОЅОЇП‰ОЅ (not П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰)—indicates that this is to be understood as Greek. In the other witness statements mentioned above, Petros writes entirely in Coptic. 87. This term also occurs in O.CrumVC 38, in which the sender of the letter, Callinicus, sent a notarios to the bishop Apa Taurinus, so that he may transcribe (вІ™вІ‰вІ§вІЃвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰; ОјОµП„О±ОіПЃО¬П†П‰) various texts (here the Greek О»ПЊОіОїП‚) into Egyptian. However, this text is from central Egypt, not Thebes, and its use of the title (seemingly not a notarial scribe) may not be indicative of the title’s use at Thebes. 88. For P.Ryl.Copt. 176.3–4, which preserves вІ›вІЎМЈвІҐвІЃМЈП©МЈ вІ…вІ‰вІ±вІЈвІ…вІ‰ вІ™МЈвІ› П©вІЃвІ§вІЈвІ‰ “the masters[?] Georgios and Hatre,” the editor, Walter Crum, notes these problems in its use (see also Crum 1939, 383b–384a). See also Boud’hors 2016, 1032: “est-ce un scribe, un maГ®tre, ou simplement un titre de notabilitГ©.” 89. вІҐвІЃвІ-вІџoccurs two other times, in O.CrumVC 6r.10 and 114.9 (вІЎвІҐвІЃвІ-вІЃ, but presumably the same word), and Crum did not provide a translation in either instance. 90. The relationship between the place Tmenk-pa-Djeme (see Timm 1984–2007, 6:2708) and Djeme is unknown. 91. The Theban region offers an opportunity to study literacy levels in a late antique Coptic village. Such a study will not be undertaken here. Wilfong (2002, 19) touches on this subject, noting that the abundance of written material from the village should be tempered by several factors, such as the frequent references to the illiteracy of those involved in the documentary process (including the relevant parties and witnesses), and that the texts do not represent the lives of all of Djeme’s inhabitants, particularly the poorer members of the community. The points raised by Bowman and Woolf (1994b, 2–6) on the problems of “generalising models of literacy” are pertinent to this case study. It should be noted that the works collected in Bowman and Woolf 1994a do not include any Coptic case studies. 92. This number will certainly increase in the future, particularly as more tax receipts are published. An example of one such text that may be attributed to him but that is unsigned, heavily effaced, and not of a type otherwise represented in the dossier is O.Col. inv. 513 (in the collection of Columbia University), an image of which is available on the APIS website (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/projects/digital/apis/). On the reverse of the ostracon is penciled “Hand of Aristophanes,” but I cannot attribute it to him with any confidence and therefore do not include it among his texts. Even though it is omitted from this study, it speaks of the potential that exists for expanding the corpus. I thank Elisabeth O’Connell for drawing my attention to this item. Another potential document of his is a papyrus in the collection of the Louvre Museum. The notation does not survive, but the formulae may be by Aristophanes. I thank Lajos

Berkes for bringing my attention to the existence of this document (of which I have not seen an image) and for sharing with me his initial transcription. 93. It is impractical, given the physical differences of the texts and the writing supports used, to quantify the difference between the volumes of their work in any meaningful way. 94. P.KRU 87 is problematic in this respect, as discussed in chapter 3.3. 95. Till (1962, 62) lists two other texts mentioning an Aristophanes without patronymic, O.Crum 169.9 (a receipt, which can be discounted as it is from Coptos) and O.Medin.HabuCopt. 21.5 (a fragmentary name list). 96. The editio princeps of SB Kopt. II 1001 transcribes the name as Coptic: [вІЃвІЈвІ“вІҐвІ§]вІџвІ«вІЃвІ›вІџвІ©вІҐ вІ‰МЈвІ…МЈ???. Even though only one line survives, with illegible traces of another, his signature here should be transcribed as Greek, i.e., [бј€ПЃО№ПѓП„]ОїП†О¬ОЅОїП…П‚ бј”Оі[ПЃО±П€О±]. 97. This is not a signature but the writing of his name within a list. 98. This and P.KRU 101 are part of the same document. 99. The physical properties of ostraca are very different to those of papyrus and provide constraints specific to the material in question and the nature of its first use. Depending on the shape of the ostracon—no two are ever the same shape and size—Aristophanes was forced into dividing his signature between several lines. For example, O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943 (text 5 in appendix 2) is a potsherd in the form of a rightangled trapezium oriented such that the pointed end is at the bottom-right corner. Aristophanes wrote his signature in just the tip of the ostracon, over four lines. O.BM EA 31805 (text 1 in appendix 2) is a potsherd that preserves part of the rim of the vessel. Aristophanes wrote five lines of text parallel to the rim, but his signature is written at a different angle to these, parallel to the bottom edge of the uneven quadrilateral sherd. 100. As an example of this, see the similarities between Aristophanes and Johannake discussed in Cromwell 2011. 101. As Parsons (1989, 36) notes in his review of Cavallo’s study of Greek papyri from Herculaneum, “вЂSimilarity’ may be in the eye of the beholder. C. sees a similarity between PHerc 1676 and POxy 2359 and therefore wishes to assign the latter to i B.C. rather than ii A.D.” It is easy to see a similarity if you really want to see it. 102. I do not mean that Aristophanes was the only Coptic writer to use this title but that it is particular to the passes that he wrote. FГ¶rster (2002, 509) collects the attestations of ОјОµО№О¶ПЊП„ОµПЃОїП‚ in Coptic texts, all of which occur after the Coptic definite article and not in Greek sections of documents (on the distinction between Coptic and Greek sections in Aristophanes’ texts, see chapter 3.1). 103. For the image of SB Kopt. II 971, see Boud’hors 1996, pl. 4C. 104. These similarities are discussed in chapter 6.2. 105. On this, see chapter 3.1. 106. This is the date range proposed by Till (1962, 40–41), mostly based on the date of P.KRU 71 (for which see section 2.4 below), Daniel’s will, with which the content of P.KRU 116 seems to be closely connected. 107. See chapter 4.3. 108. Coptic tax demands are treated in detail in chapter 6.2; see also P.Mon.Apollo pp. 24–25, 42 (table 6), 43 (table 7); Cromwell 2013a; Delattre 2008. 109. Aristophanes’ role in administrating taxes in the village is discussed in chapter 6.2. 110. Through the image of P.CLT 3 that is available on the online catalog of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Aristophanes’ paleography in this text can be compared to other examples provided in the current volume. 111. P.CLT p. 11: “The scribe of the communal agreement is unknown, unless it be Aristophane Iohannes who acts as scribe for a party, but several of the parties reappear in published texts.” It should be stressed here, however, that Schiller never saw the original papyrus but worked from Crum’s transcription (see the following note concerning the current location of the papyrus), in which Aristophanes is noted as the scribe. 112. The papyrus was sold by Walter Crum to Georg Steindorff in 1913, but whether Steindorff left it in Germany or took it with him to the United States when he emigrated in 1939 is unknown. I thank Sebastian

Richter, who tracked down the details of Steindorff’s Nachlass to the Bridwell Library, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, where the trail—for P.CLT 6, at least—ran cold. Crum’s correspondence, now held in the Griffith Institute, Oxford, includes letters to Schiller, dated to the end of 1927, discussing this document and granting permission for Schiller to use his transcriptions. 113. Cyriacus wrote P.KRU 28 and 50; for his published tax receipts, see Delattre (2002, 262–264), the edition of a receipt by Cyriacus (O.Brux. inv. E. 375), especially the commentary to line 6, on Cyriacus himself. A number of unpublished receipts by Cyriacus are part of the Kelsey Museum and Columbia University collections, which I am preparing for publication, together with other unpublished tax receipts in these collections. His paleographic style and career are discussed in chapter 6.2. 114. The invocation of P.CLT 6.1 is the Greek version of 2J, following the typology established by Bagnall and Worp (2004, 100–101), whereas Aristophanes, Cyriacus, and Isaac all wrote 2E. Greek 2J is used by Comes son of Abraham (P.KRU 59) and Petros son of Theophilos (P.KRU 64) and in the anonymous O.CrumST 59, P.CLT 4, and P.KRU 81 and 84. 115. Schiller noted (P.CLT p. 12) that Crum also assigned P.CLT 7 to Aristophanes, which he reaffirmed in the description of the text itself (p. 65). Till (1962, 61) consequently included this document in his list of texts written by Aristophanes. 116. Youtie (1975b) discusses the role of the hypographeus, not only in its capacity as amanuensis, but as having a moral responsibility to the illiterate party for whom they were writing. In speaking of the evidence from Greek documents, Youtie notes that these individuals were never anonymous but always give their names (209–210). This is not always the case in Coptic documents, as the limited examples in Aristophanes’ dossier make clear. Apart from the situations in which no statement was written, there are others in which it is not clear who wrote the statement, that is, when consecutive statements appear in the same hand but no man claims credit for having written them. The study of this practice deserves greater attention than can be afforded it here. 117. In the editio princeps, Crum did not mark Epiphanius’ statement as in a different hand, but it certainly was not written by Aristophanes. The opening formula states that Epiphanius signed by his own hand: вІ‰вІ“П©вІ©вІЎвІџвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰ П©вІ› вІ›вІЃП-вІ“П«вІ™вІ™вІ“вІ› вІ‰вІ™вІ™вІџвІ“ “I sign by my own hand” (lines 8–9). 118. There are examples of its use by witnesses: for example, Comos son of Johannes, who wrote the witness statement of Chael son of Abraham, uses the verb вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ-вІ‰(P.KRU 22.68–71, but these are generally the exception, rather than the norm; see the discussion to P.KRU 43 below. 119. Or “they do not know letters”; for the equivalent in Greek, see Calderini 1950, 17–21; Youtie 1975a. 120. Omitted in this discussion of Aristophanes as amanuensis are tax receipts in which he wrote for the official (strategos) named in the text. In these instances, it is unlikely that the official was present when the receipts were drawn up, and Aristophanes probably signed for them in absentia (see chapter 4.2–3 for further discussion). The other signatories in these receipts, either Andreas and Petros or Papnoute and Dioscorus, were not witnesses, so tax receipts do not contribute to the total number of documents that have witness statements. 121. On lines 38 and 39, the names of Theodoreke son of Ezekiel and Constantine son of Johannes survive, but the ends of both lines, which would reveal both the role of these men and who may have written for them, are lost. 122. As he signed his notation in Greek, it could be presumed that he would write his witness statement in Greek as well. In this respect, the choice of language in which the first parties wrote their consent (or had their consent written) or in which witnesses wrote their statements is interesting, although it can barely be touched on here. Among Aristophanes’ documents, Epiphanius son of Pcher wrote his own consent in P.KRU 41.102–103. His statement is mostly in Coptic, but his name is in Greek, using Greek lexemes and articles: вІ‰вІЎвІ“вІ«вІЃвІ›вІ“ вІ©(вІ“)вІџ(вІ©) вІ§вІџвІ© вІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІ©) вІЎвІ-ⲉⲣ“Epiphanius son of the late Pcher.” Indeed, his name could be transcribed entirely as Greek. There are also a number of noteworthy examples outside Aristophanes’ dossier. In P.KRU 5, there is no statement of consent, only witness statements. Johannes son of Papnoute, Chael son of Severos, and Peu son of Thomas acted as witnesses, with the scribe Shenoute son of Shmentsney writing for them. Shenoute wrote entirely in Coptic for himself, including in his own witness statement, but he wrote in Greek

for the other witnesses (I keep Crum’s original transcription here, although it should be rendered in Greek script): вІ“вІ±вІЃ(вІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ) вІ©вІ“вІџ(вІ©) вІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІ©) вІЎвІЃвІЎвІ›вІџвІ©вІ‘(вІ“вІџвІ©) (вІ•вІЃвІ“) вІ-вІЃвІЏвІ—вІ©вІ“вІџ(вІ©) вІҐвІ‰вІ©вІЏвІЈвІџвІ© (вІ•вІЃвІ“) вІЎвІ‰вІЏвІ© вІ©вІ“вІџ(вІ©) вІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІ©) вІ‘вІ±вІ™вІЃвІҐ вІ™вІЃвІЈвІ§вІ‰вІЈвІџвІ© “Johannes son of the late Papnoute, Chael son of Severos, and Peu son of the late Thomas witness” (P.KRU 5.64–65, with the sinusoid symbol, віЅ, for вІ•вІЃвІ“). It was presumably at the witnesses’ behest that Shenoute wrote in Greek, rather than Coptic, although he made no mention of language choice. Shenoute acted as witness in P.KRU 24.151–152, where he intended to write entirely in Greek, but his first language, Coptic, interfered (note the use of the Coptic definite article, вІЎ): вІҐвІ‰вІ›вІџвІ©вІ‘(вІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ©вІ“вІџ(вІ©) вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ-вІ™вІ›вІ§вІҐвІ›вІЏвІ©вІЎвІ“вІ‰вІ—вІЃвІ-(вІ“вІҐвІ§вІџвІҐ) вІЎвІЈ(вІ‰вІҐвІѓвІ©вІ§вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ) вІ™вІЃвІЈвІ§вІ©вІЈвІџвІ© “Shenoute son of the late Shmentsney, the most humble priest, witnesses.” These two examples show that Shenoute, a well-known scribe in his own right (see Cromwell 2012b), who signed his documents in Greek, wrote witness statements in each language. The reasons for this are not apparent. 123. In P.KRU 40, the designation is lost both at the beginning and final clauses of the document, but it records the same type of settlement as in P.KRU 39, 40, and 41, a settlement involving inherited property, and is probably also a вІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІҐвІ™вІџвІҐ вІ‰вІ§вІџ вІ›вІ‡вІ“вІЃвІ—вІ©вІҐвІ“вІҐ. 124. Till 1962, 62. 125. For the start of the indiction year generally, see Bagnall and Worp 2004, 27–35; for Thebes specifically, see Gonis 2004c, 157 and references therein. 126. P.KRU 15 is omitted from Till 1962, 19. 127. P.Bal. 130 Appendix B.4 preserves the day on which the demand was written, but not the year for which taxes were due. The date is the same as in Appendix A, showing that they were written at the same time. 128. 105 AH started on 10.06.723, 106 AH on 29.05.724; these dates are taken from Bagnall and Worp 2004, 302. 129. In his introduction to P.Bal. 130, Paul Kahle noted that the years 105–106 AH equate to 723, but he is only partially correct, and his identification of a mistake on Aristophanes’ part is wrong. 130. See table 4.1. Till (1964, 215–216) suggests dates to both this and the following indiction cycle, but the later date should be rejected in each instance. 131. Оњ(Оµ)П‡(бЅ¶ПЃ) О№Оµ бј°(ОЅ)Оґ(О№ОєП„ОЇП‰ОЅОїП‚) О¶ (P.CLT 6.2). 132. Crum (O.Crum p. xvi) assigned the Djeme tax receipts “with certainty to the middle of the 8th century,” on the basis of their prosopography (see also the commentary to O.Crum 409). At his time of writing, P.CLT 1, which dates Psate son of Pisrael and Johannes son of Lazarus—two scribes heavily involved in the writing of such receipts—to 698, had not been discovered. They instead belong to the period 710–730, for the reasons laid out in Kahle 1974. 133. P.CLT 1, 13 September 698; P.CLT 2, 25 November 703; P.CLT 4, 18 November 702; P.CLT 5, 711/2; P.KRU 106, 31 May 735: see Till 1962, 39–44. 134. This Johannes is not Johannes son of Matthias, who was dioiketes with Petros son of Comes in P.KRU 21, 50, and 51. That identification was suggested by Till (1962, 42) based on his earlier date of these documents, which I dispute below. 135. This point was previously noted by Schiller (1953, 353–354 n. 156): “When a father is noted as ОјО±ОєО¬ПЃО№ОїП‚, it is practically certain he is dead, but when no such epithet is employed, he is alive or dead.” 136. This is based on a complex set of arguments that involve P.KRU 71, in which Christodoros son of Daniel is the beneficiary. The arguments are discussed in relation to P.KRU 58 below, under “Problems.” I will return to this group of texts in chapter 5.5. 137. The only papyrological study of the effects of gerontology on handwriting of which I am aware is Daniel 2008, concerning the effects of age on the writing of Hermas son of Ptolemaios, a Greek scribe who lived ca. 35 to 121 CE, to the ripe old age (indeed, the ancient age) of eighty-six. Hermas’ signature survives in four documents separated by more than thirty years. In the latest, his hand shows erratic qualities and suggests a tremor, which Daniel attributes to “waning physical or mental health in his old age.”

The effects of age on Hermas manifested in different ways to those exhibited by Aristophanes: for example, Hermas’ hand degenerates to one hardly distinguishable from the “clumsy block-letter hands of the semi-literate вЂslow-writers.’” But Hermas’ hand in his younger years described by Daniel as a “fairly tight and fluent semicursive,” was of a different type than the fast and fluent cursive of the young Aristophanes. 138. For a scientific analysis of the effects of age on handwriting, see Caligiuri and Mohammed 2012, 79–91, 195–200. The first section examines the effect of age on motor control, including force variability and motor coordination. Variation in grip force can adversely affect the smoothness and speed of pen-stroke trajectories, while age-related impairments in motor coordination affect the smoothness and accuracy of movements (and adversely affect multijoint movements, such as are required in handwriting, more so than single-joint movements). Of particular relevance to Aristophanes is the observation that “fluctuations in force steadiness and inconsistent deployment of adaptive strategies can introduce variability in many features of the handwriting movement, including amplitude, slant, smoothness, and pen pressure. More importantly, these fluctuations can occur within a single document and over time between documents” (91). A number of other conditions affect handwriting, including neurological disease and psychotropic medications. While these cannot be discounted in the case under consideration here, we know that Aristophanes must have been at least in his fifties by this point. Although not as old as Hermas (see previous note), this was a considerable age, and affects due to aging are likely. Afflictions of the eyes (Daniel [2008, 152 n. 9] cites Greek evidence from the second and third centuries CE) would also impair writing, but whether that would result in the changes manifest in Aristophanes’ hand cannot be determined. 139. Aristophanes’ signature is of no help in determining when his writing deteriorated. Overall, the degree of variation between papyri and ostraca across thirty years prevents them from being placed in any chronological order. 140. For the full discussion of Isaac’s hand and his complete chronology, see Cromwell 2010b. 141. In Cromwell 2010b (14), I provide a range of 749–756. However, based on other features of P.KRU 87, as noted in the discussion below, a slightly later date is more likely. 142. See chapter 5.4. 143. Till (1962, 25) dated P.KRU 50 to 724, but in the entry for Cyriacus son of Petros, who wrote the document, he dated it to 739 (p. 128). 144. P.KRU 45.3–4: бјђПЂбЅ¶ О¦О»(О±П…ОЇбїі) ОЈО±бЅ°О» П…бј±бЅё(П‚) бј€ОІОґО-О»О»О± П„бї· бјђОЅОґ(ОїОѕП‰П„О¬П„бїі) бјЂОјОЇПЃО± + бјЂПЂбЅё ПЂО±ОіО±ПЃП‡(бї¶ОЅ) ОґО№ОїПѓ(ПЊ)О»(ОµП‰П‚) бј•П‰П‚ О›О¬П„П‰(ОЅ) [ПЂПЊО»ОµП‰П‚] “Under Flavius Sahl b. КїAbd AllДЃh, the most illustrious amir + from the pagarchy of Diospolis and Latopolis”; P.KRU 50.3: бјђПЂбЅ¶ О¦О»(О±П…ОЇбїі) ОЈО±бЅ°О» П„бї· ОµбЅђОєО»Оµ(ОµПѓП„О¬П„бїі) бјЂОјОЇПЃО± бјЂПЂбЅё О”О№ОїПѓПЂПЊО»(ОµП‰П‚) бј•П‰(П‚) О›О¬П„П‰(ОЅПЂПЊО»ОµП…П‚) ПЂО±ОіО¬ПЃП‡бїѓ “Under Flavius Sahl the most illustrious amir from the pagarchies Diospolos and Latopolis.” Sahl is not referred to as pagarch in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A. The amir вІЎвІЃП©вІЃвІ— (a possible misspelling of вІҐвІЃП©вІЃвІ— for вІҐвІЃвІЃвІ—) who appears in P.KRU 42.8 bears no further titles. 145. As Sijpesteijn (2013, 103) notes, “Without owning estates in the areas they governed, as opposed to their Christian predecessors, these Muslim pagarchs lacked a local independent power base to sustain them. None of the Muslim pagarchs, as opposed to their Christian predecessors and contemporaries, are known to have possessed estates. Their being moved around through different offices during their career added to the pagarchs’ dependency on the central authorities to which they were personally beholden.” 146. Till (1962, 32–33) places much emphasis on the date of Cyriacus son of Demetrios and his connection with P.KRU 13. 147. This is more likely than moving the date of P.KRU 13 later, to 748, as Chael son of Psmo, the dioiketes in this text, does not occur this late (instead, his son, Comes son of Chael, was dioiketes at this time). I therefore reject the possibility of the later date, which I originally proposed in Cromwell 2010b, 15. 148. Systematic analysis of the writings of all forms of names by particular scribes may help to elucidate the

reasons for this variation. 149. In this section, I quite radically revise my discussion of the dating issues that I proposed in Cromwell 2013b. 150. See Till 1962, 141–142. 151. The abbreviated title μειζζ/ has traditionally been understood as the plural abbreviation for μειζότερος, which Steinwenter (1920, 41) identified as synonymous with μείζων, rendering both terms as the equivalent of Coptic lashane (village headman). Steinwenter’s outdated study has been replaced partly by Schmelz (2002, 296–309) and has been significantly reconsidered by Berkes (2013) in his analysis of late antique village administration, where he argues that the situation is more complicated than stated by Steinwenter. The abbreviation is to be understood as either μείζων or μειζότερος in different situations, and the two are not synonyms. One issue with Aristophanes’ use of the term is whether the designation in P.KRU 10, in which it is surely synonymous with dioiketes, is the same as that in P.Schutzbriefe 27 and 28, safe conduct passes, which were more probably issued by the lashane. The time when Aristophanes was using these terms may be important here. The 720s, to which the passes date, saw the introduction of several new terms (e.g., strategos; see the discussion in chapter 3.3), and Aristophanes’ use of μειζζ/ may be an imprecise use of new terms, while its use for μειζότερος in the later P.KRU 10 is correct. 152. If lashane was intended, the earlier date would be impossible, as this would position the officials in P.KRU 10 as concurrent with Athanasios son of Georgios and Victor son of Joseph, who served as lashane together between 722 and 723/4 (P.KRU 36.16–18, 71; 37.123; 68.105). 153. Till’s uncertainty concerning the dates of some texts—if not, rather, an inconsistency in his study—is apparent in his entry for Johannes son of Lazarus, who wrote P.KRU 51. In Till’s discussion of the date of the document, he dates it to 27.3.724 (Till 1962, 25), but in his entry for Johannes, who wrote the document, he dates it to 739 (Till 1962, 108). Similar discrepancies are found elsewhere, including with Philotheos son of Solomon, a witness in P.KRU 21, in whose entry that text is dated 740 (Till 1962, 177). 154. Till 1962, 27, 29. 155. P.KRU 71.65–67: + ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲁⲑⲁⲛⲁⲥⲓⲟⲥ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲙⲁⲕ(ⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ) ⲁⲛⲁⲛⲓⲁⲥ ϯⲟ ⲙⲉⲛⲧⲣⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲫⲟⲓⲃ(ⲁⲙⲙⲱⲛ) ⲡⲉϥϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲓⲥϩⲁⲓ ϩⲁⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉ ⲙⲉϥⲛⲟⲓ ⲛⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲁⲩⲱ ϯⲟ ⲙⲉⲛⲧⲣⲉ + “+ I, Athanasios son of the late Ananias, bear witness. I, his son Phoibammon, wrote for him because he cannot write and I bear witness. +” 156. Till (1962, 64–66, 178–179) lists twenty-four different men called Athanasios and twenty-three different Phoibammons for whom patronymics are known (these numbers increase when taking into account the number of attestations without a patronymic that Till also cites). 157. P.KRU 71.2; see Till 1962, 27–28, 235, for the list of village officials from 728–771. 158. Till 1962, 69–70. 159. For the father-son relationship between these two men, see Cromwell 2012b. 160. For these dates, see Till 1962, 17, 21, 54. P.KRU 24 has been backdated to 762 from Till’s 763, and P.KRU 5 dates to 748 rather than 733 (Till provided both as possibilities), based on the fact that Shmentsney was alive in 733. 161. The transcription as Coptic follows the script of the editio princeps. Shenoute’s use of Greek lexemes—the definite article τοῦ and the noun υἱοῦ (υἱὸς)—suggests that his statement should be transcribed as Greek, which is supported by small changes in his paleography, for example, in pi and in the writing of minuscule kappa. 162. Elisaios son of Elias and Petros son of NN were joint lashanes in P.KRU 74, which dates to 28 December 733 or 748 (Till 1962, 28), four months earlier than P.KRU 71. 163. The term archive has received considerable attention from papyrologists over the past couple of decades. For the most recent discussion (including types of archive, whether private, personal, family, community, etc.), together with an overview of previous bibliography, see Vandorpe and Waebens 2009, 53–57.

164. The need for such an interdisciplinary approach, based on the unreliability of the modern archival record, was stressed by Clackson (2004, 477), who noted that such information may not be deemed important enough to be included in some publications (although this is increasingly not the case) and that details “may well be altered or concealed by the finder and/or the dealer for various reasons.” This latter point is particularly pertinent for part of the Aristophanes material, specifically the texts acquired by E. A. W. Budge (who is notorious for his inaccuracy in such matters: see Cromwell 2007, 59–60; Smith 2004). Clackson (P.Mon.Apollo and P.BawitClackson) and Delattre (P.Brux.Bawit) have used museum archaeology in the process of reconstructing the archives of the monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit. The term itself was pioneered by Vandorpe (1994) during her study of the Greek archives from Pathyris, and the most thorough treatment of its application is Vandorpe and Waebens 2009, 65–79 (the pages cited focus specifically on the methodology involved, but the entire volume is based on its application). 165. This point has been demonstrated by Muhs (2008), who notes the differences resulting from the material features of papyri and ostraca and their different uses that affected the nature of their deposition. See also Vandorpe and Waebens 2009, 56–57. 166. Ostraca groups have occasionally been found in their original location, as is the case with those belonging to the family of Koloje at Djeme, which were found in House 34 in the village, for which see Wilfong 1990. 167. This necessity to keep legal papers in a safe place was certainly not unique to Djeme’s inhabitants. Although a much earlier document (ca. 114 BC), P.Tebt. I 52 makes it clear that theft of papers was always a possibility: “An attack was made upon my dwelling by Arsinoe and her son Phatres, who went off with the contract relating to my house and other business documents” (translation from Vandorpe 2009, 219). Theft at Djeme, albeit of goods, is documented among Aristophanes’ texts, in P.KRU 52. 168. Krause 1991, 226. 169. For examples of book lists, see O.Crum 457–459; for the ostraca archive of the monastery more generally, see Godlewski 1986, 51–53. Most recently, on the existence of the monastery’s library, see Boud’hors and Garel 2016. 170. Goodwin 1859, 237; 1863, 447. See the discussion in Cromwell 2007, 61. 171. The most common storage receptacle for archives found in situ elsewhere are pottery vessels. Vandorpe (2009, 219) provides several examples for this practice from different locations, times, and social milieus. 172. This is noted in Crum’s notebook 77 in the Griffith Institute at Oxford, which states that the Metropolitan’s then curator of Egyptian art, A. M. Lythgoe, sent the papyri to Crum in February 1924, who returned them to Lythgoe in June of the same year. In P.CLT 1, 2, and 4, the monastery is the second party; in SB III 7240, it is the recipient of a letter from the Arab governor; and P.CLT 5, although broken, names the superiors of the monastery. All are concerned, in some way, with the monastery’s financial affairs, and it is appropriate that the monastery retained each document for itself. P.KRU 106, a donation by Anna daughter of Johannes, is the only other document that involves the monastery of Apa Paul: вІ‰вІ›вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ вІ™вІЎвІ‘вІ‰вІџвІ§вІ“вІ™вІ“вІ§вІџвІҐ вІ›вІҐвІџвІ› вІ‰вІ§вІ§вІЃвІ“вІЏвІ© вІЃвІѓвІѓвІЃ вІЌвІЃвІ-вІЃвІЈвІ“вІЃвІҐВ .В .В . вІЃвІ©вІ± вІ›вІ›вІџП-вІ™вІ™вІџвІ›вІЃвІ-вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ™вІЃ вІ‰вІ§вІџвІ©вІЃвІЃвІѓ вІ™вІ«вІЃвІ…вІ“вІџвІҐ вІЎвІЃвІ©вІ—вІџвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ•вІџвІ—вІџвІ— вІ™вІЎвІ§вІџвІџвІ© вІ›П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ “We write to the God-honored, esteemed brother Apa ZachariasВ .В .В . and the great monks of the holy monastery of Saint Paul of the Cup of the mount of Djeme” (P.KRU 106.14–19). There is no mention of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon in this document, yet its acquisition history is connected with the body of child donation documents that are now in Cairo (of which P.KRU 95 is a part). These were sent by Auguste Mariette to EugГЁne Revillout in 1876 to study and publish (they first appeared in P.RevilloutCopt.) In the avertissement of his volume, Revillout notes that, for the purposes of the publication, only the Theban documents found in the “cartulary” of the monastery of Deir el-Bahri were included. I have no immediate explanation as to how P.KRU 106 came to be part of this group. 173. These criteria for what constitutes a “family archive” are stipulated by Vandorpe and Waebens (2009, 55). 174. Solomon son of Moses sold his property to his daughter and granddaughter, Tagape and Esther, in P.KRU 3, which they retained and passed, as a bundle, to Aaron when he purchased the land through

P.KRU 2. For more detail on the relationship between these two deeds of sale, see chapter 5.3. 175. Bierbrier 2012, 395. 176. Schiller 1953, 369–370. 177. Vandorpe and Waebens (2009, 55) discuss this process. 178. See the genealogical chart in Schiller 1953, 374. 179. This decision is largely based on the difficulties of reconciling the dates of the two Abigaias: see Till 1962, 49; Wilfong 2002, 67. 180. For the acquisition of these texts, P.KRU 35–37 and 68, see Cromwell 2007, 58–59. 181. A very preliminary study is presented in Cromwell 2012a, which is superseded by the significantly revised and expanded Cromwell 2013b (in particular, see pp. 228–231 for the history of this archive). 182. Godlewski (1986, 55) refers to three accounts, those recorded by Charles Goodwin (for which see Godlewski’s n. 175), Luigi Vasalli, and Jean Maspero. 183. Godlewski 1986, 56. 184. In his earlier publications, Schiller repeated Goodwin’s statements that the documents were discovered in “the ruins of an old monastery” (P.CLT p. 3). In Schiller’s later discussion of the archive of the families of Elizabeth and Abigaia (1953, 368–370), he suggested that they were stored within two lots, one in the possession of one of Elizabeth’s children and one in the house of Comes son of Damianos. In his later introduction to the reprint of P.KRU, he suggested a situation to accommodate both locations: “It would seem to the present writer that both locales, in the houses at JГЄme and in the archives of the monastery at Deir el Bahri, may well be the places where the documents were secreted” (Schiller 1971, 4). 185. Budge (1920, 2:334–335, 342), who was responsible for the largest acquisitions made by the British Museum, stated that such activity was undertaken at his command; on this claim, see Cromwell 2007, 59–60. 186. For HГ¶lscher’s work at the site, see chapter 1.1. 187. This conclusion is contra that presented in Cromwell 2007, 63, where I largely followed Godlewski. 188. This approach has been applied to documents from other periods with great success. Richard Parkinson’s discussion of the manuscript of the Tale of Sinuhe, from the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1975–1640 BCE) and written in hieratic (an earlier Egyptian script), encapsulates entirely the goal of the current chapter: “The material manuscripts allow a sense of intimacy with the scribe(s) simply through the sheer immediacy of our observing the results of the copying process—the fingerprint, the fluctuating speed, the slips, and self-corrections” (Parkinson 2009, 113). Despite over two millennia separating the writing of this literary work from Aristophanes’ documents, the ability to access ancient scribes in this way transcends time, language, and script. 189. How these changes manifested themselves is discussed in chapter 2.4 (under “Paleography and Gerontology”) and also below, in relation to P.KRU 15 and 87. 190. Aristophanes’ use of Greek is discussed in chapter 4.2 and chapter 6.2. 191. This follows the terminology employed by Delattre in P.Brux.Bawit pp. 127–128, where the terms bilinear and quadrilinear are applied to majuscule and minuscule, respectively. The first of these terms is especially problematic with Aristophanes, as his Coptic style does not match the majuscule examples provided by Delattre in his study, which are more closely connected with book hands, that is, literary styles. Indeed, both of Aristophanes’ styles conform to what Delattre refers to as “minuscule.” 192. A more detailed discussion of Aristophanes’ Greek letterforms is provided in Cromwell 2010a. 193. See the images of the recto and verso on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s online catalog. 194. These uses are вІЎвІЃвІ“ + вІ‰вІ§ + adverbial phrase (P.KRU 10.12; 11.24; 14.35; 27.28, 39; 39.23, 42; 41.14, 55; 43.25; 58.11), вІЎвІЃвІ“ + relative I Perfect (P.KRU 14.36; 15.32; 17.26; 95.15, 16), and вІЎвІЃвІ“ + relative I Future (P.KRU 14.39). The use of вІЎвІЃвІ“ in P.KRU 39.32 is a different error: вІЎвІЃвІ“ вІЎвІ™вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ вІ›вІ§вІЃПЈвІ‰вІ›вІџвІ©вІ§вІ‰ вІЎвІЈвІ‰вІҐвІѓвІ©вІ§вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐ вІ§вІЃП©вІџПҐ requires the copula вІЎвІ‰, that is, вІЎвІЃвІ“ (вІЎвІ‰) вІЎвІ™вІ‰вІЈвІџвІҐВ .В .В . “this (is) the share that the priest Shenoute received.” 195. In the original edition, вІ›вІ§вІ‰вІќвІџвІ©вІҐвІ“вІЃ is not noted as being a superlinear addition. 196. As discussed in chapter 5.1, the differences in land categories, especially between seeming synonyms such as вІ-вІ±вІЈвІЏвІ™вІЃand вІ•вІЃП©, are not understood. If a conscious decision was made here to

use вІ-вІ±вІЈвІЏвІ™вІЃrather than вІ•вІЃП©, this may show that an important distinction existed between them. 197. The final letter of this addition, вІ›, was written over an earlier letter of the same size. The plural definite article, вІ›, is required and belongs not to the added text but to the original writing. It is possible that it was written originally and that Aristophanes decided to retrace it. 198. This a correction to the editio princeps, ПҐвІ§вІџвІ© в†’ ПҐвІ§вІџвІџвІ©. 199. Compare P.KRU 10.39–40, 11.32–33, 14.46–47, 15.46, 27.35–35. 200. The full formula here normally includes вІ›вІ…вІ•вІ©вІЈвІ“вІ‰вІ©вІ‰вІҐвІ‘вІЃвІ“, which is largely synonymous with вІЃвІ™вІЃП©вІ§вІ‰, but its omission is not exceptional—it was certainly not part of what was written originally, on the basis of the visible traces and final ⲥ—and it is also not included in the equivalent passage in P.KRU 27.88 and 41.62–63. 201. This is a rare construction in Aristophanes’ texts. It is possible that the only other occurrence of it, вІ§вІЃвІЈвІ•ПЈвІ±вІЎвІ‰ in P.KRU 27.31, is also a correction over deleted text (taking into account the space before and after the word and some differences in overall appearance). However, it is there, in the middle of a few lines of somewhat scrappy text, and it is difficult to argue for an erasure plus correction here, especially as no trace of erased text is visible. 202. Aristophanes’ use of diacritics is not discussed in detail in this study, partly because of the differences in how they are employed across his dossier and the amount of linguistic analysis such a study requires. For example, in P.KRU 8 (fig. 2.4), he makes consistent use of a short vertical or sometimes diagonal stroke throughout the text. It also occurs in large numbers in P.KRU 25, 47, 48, and 52. However, none are found in P.KRU 26, and there is only one example in P.KRU 40. When used, it most frequently occurs after вІ›, typically before following вІ§, but its use with вІ›, вІ™, вІЃ, and П© are also common. Another issue concerns identifying where such a mark is intentional or accidental (the latter may account for some unique occurrences, e.g., P.KRU 40), as noted for the Aphrodito corpus by Bell in P.Lond. IV, p. xliii. Aristophanes’ most consistent use of diacritics is with the diaeresis over iota, when it is the first letter in names (e.g., вІ“М€вІЃвІ•вІ±вІѓ, вІ“М€вІ±П©вІЃвІ›вІ›вІЏвІҐ, вІ“М€вІ±вІҐвІЏвІ«) or follows a vowel, typically вІЃ (e.g., вІЃвІ“М€вІҐП©вІЃвІ“М€ ), or in ⲏⲓ̈“house.” 203. P.KRU 95.12–15: П«вІ“вІ› вІ§вІ‰вІ›вІџвІ© вІ‡вІ‰ вІ‰вІЈвІџвІ•В .В .В . вІ‰вІ•вІ›вІЃвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰П©вІџвІ©вІ› вІ›вІ…вІЃвІ™вІЃП©вІ§вІ‰ вІЃвІ©вІ± вІ›вІ…вІ•вІ©вІЈвІ“вІ‰вІ©вІ‰вІҐвІ‘вІЃвІ“ вІЃвІ©вІ± вІ›вІ…вІ‰вІЈвІЎП«вІџвІ‰вІ“вІҐ вІ›вІ•вІџвІ™вІџвІҐ вІЎвІЃвІ™вІ‰вІЈвІ“вІ§ вІ›ПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ “From now, as for you, .В .В .В you will enter, take control and possession of, and become master of my beloved son Comos” (the clause is taken from sales and settlements, in which the new owner would enter the property, and it is left unmodified in the deeds of child donation). 204. вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІ›вІЃвІ‰вІ“ вІ‰вІѓвІџвІ— вІ‰вІЈвІ±вІ§вІ› вІ‰вІ›вІ‰П© вІџвІ©вІ‡вІ‰ вІЃвІ›вІџвІ› вІџвІ©вІ‡вІ‰ вІҐвІџвІ› вІџвІ©вІ‡вІ‰ вІЎвІ‰вІ›ПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІџвІ©вІ‡вІ‰ вІ—вІЃвІЃвІ© вІ›вІЈвІ±вІ™вІ‰ вІ‰ПҐП«вІЏП© вІ‰П©вІџвІ©вІ› вІ‰вІЎвІЃвІ…вІ‰вІ›вІџвІҐ “the one who will sue you, ever, either me, or a sibling, or our children, or anybody connected to my family” (the initial formula is different in P.KRU 95.1–2, joining P.KRU 52 from вІџвІ©вІ‡вІ‰). 205. I have not been able to personally examine the other child donation documents, which are mainly in Cairo, so I restrict my observations to the London texts. 206. This is different to the situation with Aristophanes’ P.KRU 10 in the Berlin collection, in which case the notation was still attached to the document when Crum transcribed it but was cut away at a later date and is now in Warsaw. 207. The importance of these figures for determining the relative chronology of Aristophanes’ texts is discussed in chapter 2.4. 208. It is not explicitly stated that Comes was unable to sign, but Aristophanes noted that he signed for Comes and two other individuals at their request (вІЎвІЈвІџ[вІҐ вІ§вІ‰вІ©вІЃвІ“]вІ§вІЏвІҐ is not read in the original edition but can be reconstructed with confidence; the editio princeps reads, вІЃвІ“вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ П©вІЃвІЈвІџвІџвІ© вІ§П©вІџ.В .В .В .В . вІ§вІЏвІҐ). It can be inferred that Comes was illiterate and, thus, that being able to sign one’s name was not a requirement of the dioiketes. 209. A similar statement is also found in texts from other sites, such as SB Kopt. I 242.5–7 from Edfu (649 CE): вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІ›вІџвІ“М€вІ›М…вІҐП©вІЃвІ“М€ вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІ›вІЃП©вІ©вІЎвІџвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰ вІ™вІ›М…

вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІ›вІЃП©вІ©вІЎвІџвІ…вІЈвІЃвІ«вІ‰ П©вІЃ вІ›вІ‰вІ§вІҐП©вІЃвІ“М€вІЃвІ› “Those who know how to write will sign, together with those who will sign for those who do not write.” Unskilled writers are not labeled as such. There is no equivalent of the Greek ОІПЃО±ОґО-П‰П‚ ОіПЃО¬П†П‰ОЅ “slow writer,” for which see Youtie 1971. 210. Cribiore (1996, 112), in her study of Greek student hands, divides learner hands into four categories. The witnesses in the Theban texts in question are not necessarily student scribes (in most cases, they almost certainly are not) but people who have attained a certain level of skill and have no need to advance. Aligning Cribiore’s terminology with that I use here, “zero-grade” and “alphabetic hand” together form my group i, “evolving hand” is group ii, and “rapid hand” is group iii. 211. Cromwell 2010b provides a detailed analysis of one writer, Isaac son of Constantine, with accompanying images of the witness statements that he wrote. 212. See chapter 1.4 and chapter 6.3. 213. Shmentsney, for whom see Cromwell 2012b, was the scribe of P.KRU 12, 13, and 106. 214. Demetrios served as dioiketes in the 730s; see chapter 2.4. 215. See table 3.1 n. 17. 216. See chapter 2.4. 217. These are the only three attestations for Marcus; see Till 1962, 137. 218. The ink is not well preserved in much of this statement, so an image of it is not reproduced here. 219. On this and the chronology of his documents, see chapter 2.4. 220. The available information is too restricted and unrepresentative to draw conclusions concerning literacy at Djeme; see chapter 1 n. 86. 221. The name of the first party is expected here, but вІЎвІЈвІЃвІҐвІ‰вІҐ cannot be understood as anything except the document type, ПЂПЃбѕ¶ПѓО№П‚; Papas, the name of the first party, is certainly not written. Perhaps “at the request of the one who drew up the deed of sale” was intended. 222. No trace of вІЃ survives, even though the editio princeps has П©вІЃвІЈвІџвІџвІ© with no indication of damage; П©[вІЃ]\вІЈвІџвІџвІ©/ cannot be discounted. 223. This practice also occurs in documents by other scribes, such as P.KRU 83, written by Polycrates son of Johannes, in which Patermoute son of Joseph wrote for Pisenthios son of Onnophrios (lines 30–31) and for Leontios son of Onnophrios (lines 33–34), with their two statements divided by that of David son of Patermoute. The statement of Leontios was not the last one in the document, however, so the situation of P.KRU 83 is different from that found in P.KRU 14 and 39 for Papnoute and Prase respectively. 224. This point was already noted in chapter 2.2. 225. The expression found, вІҐвІ™вІџвІ›вІ§ вІ›вІ§вІ‰вІ“П©вІ‰, is problematic. In its qualitative state, the verb вІҐвІ™вІ“вІ›вІ‰ “to be correct, in good order” has no subject. Perhaps вІҐвІ™вІџвІ›вІ§ should be reconstructed, yielding the translation “ correct in this way” (Richter [2008, 262] translates this passage as “So ist es in Ordnung!”). This may be a fixed expression at Djeme, although the lack of further parallels creates an impression of a phrase particular to Aristophanes. 226. Greek demands are labeled бјђОЅП„О±ОіОЇОїОЅ, and the scholarship on this topic typically refers to them as entagia. Aristophanes never used this term, as is discussed later. Therefore, I use the terms demand and receipt to refer to the two separate text types. 227. There is no evidence after Aristophanes as far as the poll tax and expenses tax are concerned. While we have no receipts for tax payments after this period, there are passing references to taxation in numerous documents, in which other taxes are often mentioned in passing only. For example, agricultural work contracts often mention who was responsible for paying the land tax. In the following texts, all concerning land owned by the monastery of Apa Phoibammon, the terms of the contract include mention of the land tax, often its amount, and whether one or both parties is responsible for its payment: O.Crum 138 (one-half holokottinos), 206 (three and one-half artabae of wheat), and 303 (unstipulated amount) and BKU I 48 (unstipulated amount). A long fiscal document from Djeme written in Greek may shed light on some of these points. Suppl.Gr. 1100 in the BibliothГЁque Nationale, Paris, is written on leather and contains accounts for various payments for over two hundred individuals from the village, including women. One of the dues mentioned is the andrismos (see below), and the document was written sometime between 700 and 730. At the time of the writing of this study, Katherine Blouin (Toronto) was preparing Suppl.Gr. 1100 for

publication, and it has not been possible to incorporate the findings from that text into the present discussion. I thank her for showing me the text and look forward to the possibilities that it raises for future research in the field of taxation in early eighth-century Egypt. 228. Indeed, the evidence suggests that he did not write it; see chapter 2.1. 229. For this term, see Till and Steinwenter 1933, 312–313. 230. This was first suggested by Worrell and Youtie (1932, 379) in their review of P.CLT, on the basis of Schiller’s misreading of lines 15–16 of the text: вІЃвІ—вІ—вІЃ вІЃвІ›П«вІџвІџвІҐ П«вІ‰ вІџвІ©вІ‰вІ©вІ—вІџвІ…вІџвІ› вІЎвІ‰ вІ§вІЃвІЈвІ‰вІ›П-М…вІџМ… вІ‰вІ›вІҐвІ©вІ›вІ‰вІ—вІ‘вІ‰ вІ™вІ›вІ›вІ‰вІ›вІ‰вІЈвІЏвІ© вІ‰вІ—вІЃвІЃвІ© вІ›М…вІЃвІ—вІ—вІЃвІ…вІЏ вІ‰вІ©вІ›вІЏвІ© вІ‰П«вІ±вІ›. Schiller translated these lines, “accordingly we said that a list is to be made, that we declare we made among ourselves, for all duties placed upon us.” As Worrell and Youtie put it, “By no conceivable means can the Coptic be made to yield any such sense”; they instead translated the passage, “But we said that it is a reasonable thing for us to continue to coГ¶perate with one another for any duties incumbent upon us.” This alternative translation correctly reads вІ‰вІ©вІ—вІџвІ…вІџвІ› as ОµбЅ”О»ОїОіОїП‚ and not as О»ПЊОіОїП‚, as read by Schiller (see his “Index of Greek Words,” P.CLT p. 99), and it also accurately follows the grammar of the Coptic sentence. The “list of all available men” that Schiller mentions in the introduction to this text is based on a misreading of this passage. 231. See also the comments in MacCoull 1997b, which improves on certain readings in the editio princeps. 232. For more on the cursus and the dislike that Arabs had for sailing and the sea, see P.Lond. IV pp. xxxiii–xxxv. 233. Till (1962, 171) identified this Petros son of Isaac as the same Petros that signed an oath on the verso of P.KRU 58, but there are no grounds on which to equate the two men. 234. Both tax receipts in question, O.Medin.HabuCopt. 294 and O.Crum 413, were written by Psate son of Pisrael, for whom see section 4.2 and chapter 6.2. 235. For the potential significance of lists in connection with taxes, see section 4.4. 236. Till (1962, 97) lists two separate sons of Matthias named Ignatios, based on a slight orthographic variation in the patronymic. Both instances of the name surely refer to the same individual, with the variation being the result of who the writer was in each instance. 237. Athanasios son of Sanchem may appear in the name list O.Vind.Copt. 118.10, but the name is written вІ›вІЃвІҐвІ‰ вІҐвІЃвІ›вІ-вІ‰вІ™there (with no loss of text at the beginning of the line). 238. See section 4.2 and chapter 6.2. 239. For the redating of the relevant text, P.KRU 71, see chapter 2.4 (indeed, his presence in P.CLT 6 supports an earlier date for the testament). A man by the same name but without title also appears in P.KRU 45.67, 46.45, and 50.73. 240. For the introduction of this tax, see chapter 1.2; its administration throughout this period is examined in chapter 6.2. Other taxes collected at Djeme are the dioikesis, klasmata, prostheke, prostimon, stikhoi, syllogaria, and xenion, for which see the discussion in Delattre and Fournet 2014, 214–222. BГ¦k Simonsen (1988, 101) states that not all taxpayers paid the poll tax, “because this tax does not appear on all the receipts.” Even with the hundreds of tax receipts that have survived from Djeme, we do not have a complete record of tax payment in the village, and this statement should be reconsidered. 241. This is not to be confused with the ОґО№О±ОіПЃО±П†О®, which existed before the Arab conquest (when it was used alongside ОґО№О¬ОіПЃО±П†ОїОЅ) and was probably different to that introduced after the conquest; see Gascou 1983, 102. 242. This term is rare outside of Aphrodito. For its meaning as “poll tax assessment,” see the introduction to P.Lond. IV 1419 (pp. 171–172). The term is not included in FГ¶rster 2002. 243. See Bell’s discussion of the expenses tax in the introduction to P.Lond. IV 1419 (especially p. 173). 244. References to the amir al-mu’minin in Greek, Coptic, and Arabic papyri are provided in Sijpesteijn 2013, 118 n. 7. These references are to the amir al-mu’minin as caliph, not to the expenses tax. The latter is not otherwise attested in Coptic documents and is rare in Greek texts, occurring in CPR XIX 28, a scribal exercise from the Fayum, and SB XXVI 16797, a demand note from the Heracleopolite in which the amount of tax paid is lost, as is ОґО±ПЂО¬ОЅ(О·П‚), which is reconstructed; see Gonis and

Morelli 2000. 245. The occurrences of andrismos in Coptic documents collected by Förster (2002, 55) are mostly located in central Egypt, primarily the Hermopolite nome but also Deir el-Bala’izah. He does not include this example from Thebes. For its use beyond the Coptic evidence, see Sijpesteijn 2013, 73 n. 178 and the references therein. On the use of diagraphon and andrismos, see Gascou 1983, 102; Papaconstantinou 2010, 63–64. The most extensive treatment of the terminology connected with taxation remains Bell’s discussions in P.Lond. IV pp. xxv–xxxii and the introduction to P.Lond. IV 1419. 246. In the text, the term used is nomisma, as Aristophanes wrote the relevant passage in Greek. However, I use the Coptic equivalent to make its connection with the information in table 4.1 and the following discussion more transparent. 247. These scribes are discussed further in chapter 6.2. 248. Payment in two katabole was standard for Egypt after the conquest (Morimoto 1981, 108). There is no Theban evidence to the contrary, although a third katabole is found in the Fayum (see Gascou 1983, 106). On installment payments at Thebes, see also Bæk Simonsen 1988, 101–102. 249. This term also occurs in P.Lond.Copt. I 444/2, which lists installments for Daniel son of Pachom, the taxpayer of P.Bal. 130 Appendix A. This payment plan sets out three installments in the first katabale (see Cromwell 2014). The clearest use of the term in Coptic texts is found in P.Lond. IV 1570.10 and 16, concerning the second and third installments of the first katabole respectively. More generally on this, see the introduction to P.Lond. IV 1412. 250. This table can be compared with the list compiled in Poll 1999, which collects all poll tax (διάγραφον) receipts from late Byzantine and early Islamic Egypt. While this list needs to be updated (not just in terms of receipts published since, but the papyrological sigla are outdated), it is exhaustive to this date and includes receipts from elsewhere in Egypt. 251. Additionally, Ananias son of Abraham is well known in tax receipts written by Psate, although he acts as a signatory there. Petros son of Severos appears in the role of ape/strategos in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 317, which is unsigned but written by Johannes son of Lazarus; it is not certain that the two are the same man. Signatories and other officials are discussed in section 4.3. 252. O.Crum 416 (written by Cyriacus). Till (1962, 109) dated this receipt to 742, but that is one indiction cycle too late. Johannes also acted as witness to O.Medin.HabuCopt. 59, and his name also appears in the list O.Medin.HabuCopt. 33.2. Till identified him with the Johannes son of Pisenthios who appears in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 55, but that Johannes is from Tercot and, thus, unlikely to be the same man. 253. O.Vind.Copt. 81. The final lines of this receipt are missing, but its formulae and date (indiction year 14) indicate that it was written by Psate (and so are taxes from the previous indiction cycle to that written by Aristophanes). 254. See n. 42. 255. O.Vind.Copt. 72 (indiction year 7, by Psate). 256. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 323 (indiction year 1; the formulae and date indicate that Psate wrote this receipt). 257. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 343 (for taxes of indiction year 1, by Psate). His name also occurs in the list O.Medin.HabuCopt. 33. 258. This Elias may also have been the recipient of an unpublished receipt written by Cyriacus son of Petros on Pachons 30, indiction year 11, for one-half tremis, but no patronymic survives on the ostracon (O.Kelsey inv. 25106). 259. Jeremias’ patronymic does not survive on this ostracon. 260. Arrears in tax payments are discussed in sections 4.5 and 4.6. 261. There are no attestations in Aristophanes’ dossier of the general expenses tax, only those for special expenses (for the governor and the caliph). This is not to say that it was not requisitioned at Thebes, for it is attested in several receipts, both ϩⲁ ⲧⲇⲁⲡⲁⲛⲏ “for the dapane” (e.g., O.Medin.HabuCopt. 271, 290, 300, 301, 349, 372, 384, 385) and ϩⲁ ⲡⲉⲕⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲇⲁⲡⲁⲛⲏ “for your dapane share,” a phrase that probably indicates the personal responsibility of the individual payer rather than an installment (e.g., O.Vind.Copt. 94, 95; SB Kopt. I 268). 262. Two other receipts from Djeme were for the expenses tax of the governor and the klasma (κλάσμα), a form of land tax (see CPR XXII 26.4 n. 5), combined: O.Kaufmann inv. 105 (Hagedorn and Worp 2004, 160–161) and O.Torin. inv. 1448 (being prepared for publication by

Nikolaos Gonis). Each of these is for one-third holokottinos (i.e., one tremis) in total. Again, this is comparable to the amount of taxes paid in Aristophanes’ three receipts. The same tax, but recorded in Coptic, occurs in the unpublished O.Camb.UL inv. 138 (this is recorded among Sarah Clackson’s notes at the Griffith Institute, Oxford; I owe this reference to Nikolaos Gonis). 263. It is possible that some taxpayers also paid their dapane in multiple installments or payment periods. A second dapane is mentioned in O.Crum 414.5–6, П©вІЃ вІ§вІ™вІ‰П©вІҐвІ›вІ§вІ‰ вІ›вІ‡вІЃвІЎвІЃвІ›вІЏ (the receipt, written by Psate, is also for the syllogarion tax, for which see Delattre and Fournet 2014, 221–222), and O.Crum 417 (also by Psate) is a payment in the second katabole. 264. SB Kopt. II 1000 (Swai), 958 (Colluthos). Note that in SB XVIII 14037, the editio princeps did not read Swai’s patronym, and this must be corrected from ОЈОїП…О±ОµО№ (О»ПЊОіОїП…) (?) О± Оє(О±П„О±)ОІ(Ої)О»(бї†П‚) to ОЈОїП…О±ОµО№ бјёО±ОєбЅј(ОІ) (бЅ‘ПЂбЅІПЃ). I owe this rereading of SB XVIII 14037 to Nikolaos Gonis, whom I thank for his discussion of this receipt. 265. O.Petr.Mus. 574. 266. O.Kaufmann inv. 177 (Hagedorn and Worp 2004, 162), written by Cyriacus. 267. Psyros son of Elias is the owner of a small dossier of tax receipts, written mostly in Greek, that span the 720s and additionally include a receipt for the prostimon (ПЂПЃПЊПѓП„О№ОјОїОЅ), a rarely attested tax (Gonis 2004c, 162). I do not follow Gonis’ use of the term archive in reference to these receipts, as there is no evidence that Psyros—or anybody else—collected and stored them as such. 268. This has been the subject of several studies, and what follows is a brief overview only. For more detailed discussion, see P.Lond. IV pp. xxv–xxxi (which forms the basis for all later studies on the topic); Abbott 1938, 94–97; Frantz-Murphy 1999, 243–244; Morimoto 1981, 91–96 (using the literary and documentary evidence), 96–113 (on the Aphrodito evidence for tax collection). 269. This term is not used for Aristophanes’ tax demands, as discussed in section 4.1. 270. This point is treated in more detail in chapter 6.2. 271. O.Crum 407 and 408, from Kom Ombo, are signed by the entire community (вІ§вІ•вІЏвІ›вІ±вІ§вІЏвІҐ вІ§вІЏвІЈвІҐ вІ™вІЎвІ§вІџвІџвІ©). This text is not, however, proof of the communal issuing of receipts, as stated by Husselmann (1931, 337), and these receipts seem to originate from a monastic settlement (вІ§вІџвІџвІ©), even though the editio princeps suggested otherwise (in O.Crum 408, the taxpayer, Mena, is designated a monk). Communal organization for taxation in a monastic setting is well attested; see, e.g., the “brothers of the poll tax” documents from Bawit, P.BawitClackson 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11, 14, and 25. 272. References to available images are included in appendix 1. 273. For examples of this practice in early Abbasid tax demands, see chapter 6.2. 274. The only intentional spacing within his receipts is the gap between the body of the text and his signature, within which the two signatories signed. 275. A full tremis or holokottinos is masculine, but half of each is feminine (the gender being derived from Coptic вІ§.вІЎвІЏПЈвІ‰ “half”). 276. All of Aristophanes’ receipts were written in the year after that for which taxes were due. 277. Even though the same verb is used by the strategos and the signatories, the former never signed by his own hand and most likely was not present when the receipts were signed. Strategoi gave their consent in absentia. Hence the verb is used in slightly different ways depending on the role of the individual involved. 278. Not every editio princeps transcribed the receipts in this way. However, the appearance of certain diagnostic Greek letters in these sections (especially beta) indicates that all receipts are to be understood as written in both languages. 279. Psate’s use of this form is discussed in Delattre and Fournet 2014, 232–233. Psate also wrote Greek receipts that employed different formulae, beginning with ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї· (e.g., O.Crum 427; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 248–252) and ОґОїОёО-ОЅП„О± (e.g.,SB Kopt. III 1421). All these are unsigned but certainly by him, based on their year and the signatories that appear. 280. This receipt is being prepared for publication by Chrysi Kotsifou, whom I thank for sharing information about it with me. 281. The chronology of these men is discussed further in chapter 6.2. 282. Curiously, neither Ktistes nor the second taxpayer, Philotheos son of Aaron, are registered in Till 1962, although the first taxpayer, one Thellena, is (Till 1962, 94). While no toponyms are included in the receipt,

the ostracon was purchased in Thebes (Hintze 1974, 277), and there is nothing to suggest that it is not from the region. This is the only Coptic attestation of the name Ktistes, (although it is well attested in Greek: Trismegistos lists forty-seven attestations of the name), and who this man was remains a mystery. 283. This recording together, on a single ostracon, of two receipts for two individuals (between whom it is impossible, without a patronymic for Thellena, to identify a connection) raises issues about the purpose of these receipts, which is discussed further in section 4.4. 284. These possibilities were suggested in Hintze 1974, 277. 285. Indiction year 1: O.Medin.HabuCopt. 316, 335, 337. Indiction year 2: O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 86/1; O.Crum 409; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 336, 338, 339; SI inv. 43 (Pintaudi and Sijpesteijn 1990, 99); SB Kopt. II 1009, 1013. 286. Indiction year 3: O.Crum 410; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 219, 220; O.Vind.Copt. 98; SB Kopt. II 1012; and the unedited P.Cair.Cat.Copt. 8266 (Crum [1902, 65] provides only a description of this receipt, noting its particulars, i.e., taxpayer, tax paid, official, and scribe). 287. For the dates, see chapter 6.2. 288. This could be omitted, as in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 386, written by Psate. It is possible that this was done due to lack of space on the ostracon. Consultation of the original would confirm this. 289. ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲅⲣⲁ(ⲯⲁ): O.Crum 410.12–13; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 219.9–10, 220.7; O.Vind.Copt. 98.8; SB Kopt. II 1012.7–8. 290. For the most part, Psate wrote his Coptic signature on his Coptic receipts and wrote his Greek signature on his Greek receipts, but he sometimes mixed the two languages, as in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 360 and 382 (Coptic receipt, Greek signature). For his Greek receipts, see n. 54. 291. On signatories in Psate’s receipts, see section 4.3. None appear in the receipts by Psan and Athanasios. 292. It is possible that the abbreviation stroke in ⲅⲓ/ ends in a circle, which would be the abbreviated writing of nomisma, but while this small circle appears to be clear on the original (O.Vindob.K 190, which can be consulted online via the Austrian National Library’s database), it may be part of an ⲁⲣ ligature. 293. This is a common term for receipt, as shown by the entries collected in Förster 2002, 262–263. 294. This is discussed at length in Bell 1945. 295. πιττάκιον is not a common term in Coptic—Förster (2002, 648) provides three further examples—and it is only used in connection to taxes in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A and B. 296. As suggested in n. 117, the originals of receipts written in year 11 may need to be reexamined, although the two could well have overlapped. 297. The repetition of the price is not always included; note, e.g., O.Medin.HabuCopt. 274, which also omits the name of the official. 298. The editio princeps has a raised dot here. As the payment is for the taxes of the ninth indiction year, it is most likely that the collection of the taxes and the issue of the receipt occurred in the following, tenth year. O.Medin.HabuCopt. 272, 273, and 276, by Johannes, are also for taxes due in the ninth indiction year and collected in the tenth. This pattern is standard in Coptic tax receipts, as Aristophanes’ own receipts demonstrate. 299. This may be the father of Jeremias son of Basilaios, who occurs among Aristophanes’ receipts (Jeremias’ receipts are listed in section 4.1). 300. For a list of Theban Greek and Coptic receipts for this tax, see Worp 1999, 54. 301. A large number of unedited receipts written by Johannes are part of the collection of the Kelsey Museum in Ann Arbor (Wilfong 2004). Their publication may provide further evidence in support of this change in practice. 302. Also written in indiction year 10 are O.Medin.HabuCopt. 272, 273, 276, and 277 and SB Kopt. I 262 (and probably 263: its indiction year is lost, but the receipt is for taxes of indiction year 9). SB Kopt. I 265, for taxes of year 9, was written in indiction year 11. 303. See appendix 3 for their specific occurrences in Aristophanes’ dossier. 304. There is no evidence that the ape Victor (for his attestations as such, see Till 1962, 228) is to be identified as Victor son of Thomas, who signed a number of receipts written by Psate (see below) and who elsewhere bore the title lashane.

305. This suggestion is supported by the fact that different neighborhoods in Djeme appear to have been named, for which see Wilfong 2002, 9, especially n. 33. 306. See chapter 6.2. 307. O.CrumST 415a (the first full edition of the text is being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis). 308. O.Ashm. inv. 532 (being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis). 309. O.Col. inv. 154; O.Crum 422; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 239. 310. O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943. 311. O.Hyvernat 17 (being prepared for publication by Chrysi Kotsifou) is damaged in the area in which the countersignatures are expected, but there is a clear kappa, which surely belongs to the name вІ‡вІ“вІџвІҐвІ•вІџвІЈвІџвІҐ. Note that the date of O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 303 (being prepared for publication by Nikolaos Gonis) is lost, but, as it was written for taxes of indiction year 11 and is signed by Papnoute and Dioscorus, it must date to this period (it is assigned a general 729/730 date in appendix 3). 312. An image of this receipt is available in O.Medin.HabuCopt. pl. V. 313. An image of this receipt is available on the website of the Austrian National Library. 314. This appears to be the case in O.Vind.Copt. 87.1, in which the editio princeps has вІҐвІ§вІЏвІ-вІ“in Petros’ signature, but the final letter is faint, and the limb of eta may have worn away. 315. An image of this receipt is available on the website of the Austrian National Library. 316. Unlike the situation with Aristophanes, all of whose receipts are signed, Psate’s receipts were only signed between March 719 and January 722, with Ananias and Victor signing in indiction years 2 and 3, Comes and Pcher in years 3 and 4, and Mena and Athanasias in years 4 and 5. These pairings and their dates are discussed in more detail in Delattre and Fournet 2014, 227–230. 317. P.KRU 35.7–9: вІ›вІЃП©вІЈвІ› вІ›вІ§вІ“вІ™вІ“вІ±вІ§вІЃвІ§вІџвІҐ вІ‰вІ§вІ§(вІЃвІ‰вІ“вІЏвІ©) вІѓвІ“вІ•вІ§вІ±вІЈ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ‘вІ±вІ™вІЃвІҐ вІ™вІ› вІЃвІ›вІЃвІ›вІ“вІЃвІҐ вІЎПЈвІЏвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎвІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ) вІЃвІѓвІЈвІЃвІЃвІ™ вІ›вІ—вІЃПЈвІ›вІ“вІџвІ© вІ™вІЎвІ•вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЈвІџвІ› П«вІЏвІ™вІ‰ “before the most honorable, esteemed Victor son of the late Thomas and Ananias son of the late Abraham, the lashanes of the castrum Djeme.” Ananias also acted as witness to this document (lines 107–108). 318. On Aristophanes’ use of the title ОјОµО№О¶/, which here should be the equivalent of the dioiketes, see chapter 2.4 (n. 58). 319. So suggest Till (1962, 65) and Delattre and Fournet (2014, 229). 320. At least twenty-four different men with the name Athanasios are listed in Till 1962, 64–66, although P.KRU 10 is the only attestation of the son of David. Contra Till (1962), who dated P.KRU 10 to 722 (and thus contemporaneous with the receipts written by Psate), I date it to 737 (see chapter 2.4). As meizoteros in this text is miswritten for dioiketes, it is possible that Mena son of Paham served first as lashane in the early 720s and later as dioiketes in the later 730s. 321. Till (1962, 234–235) lists Severos and Johannes (728) and Abraham and Sauros (728) as possibly serving in these years as lashane, but he notes that the documents in which they appear may be one or two indiction cycles earlier. 322. Again, the dating I follow is contra Till (1962), who dated them to 724, for which see chapter 2.4. 323. Their attestations are noted in appendix 3. 324. These two receipts are part of a small dossier belonging to Elisaios son of Athanasios (grandson of Sabinos). The error in his name in the second receipt (as “Elisaios son of Sabinos”), which records his papponym rather than his patronym, suggests that Elisaios did not sign on his own behalf. 325. These are collected by Delattre and Fournet (2014, 237–238), who add an eighth text. An additional dossier of fifteen receipts written by Johannes and countersigned by Andreas in the collection of the Kelsey Museum await their full publication: see Wilfong 2003a, 90–99; 2004, 547–549. 326. The latter is edited in Sijpesteijn 1984, 95. 327. For these occurrences, see FГ¶rster 2002, 667. Till (1962, 58 [Andreas], 143 [Mena]) translated the term as “HГ¤ndler” and “Kaufmann,” missing its specialist function in these texts. 328. Gascou 1983, 82: “on voit parfois des endossements au nom d’un substitut du payeur juridique” (followed by Boud’hors 1996, 163). 329. Wilfong 2004, 549. 330. This was suggested by Wilfong (2004, 549) for the trio of Johannes son of Lazarus (scribe), Joseph son

of Abraham (signatory), and the pragmateutes Andreas (countersigner). 331. This text is reedited in appendix 2 (text 10). 332. Theban examples include P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 174, 231, 237, 282. 333. The following name lists are broken on the right side, where numerals would have been written if they were accounts: O.Crum 440; O.Medin.HabuCopt. 6, 21, 36; O.Vind.Copt. 449; SB Kopt. III 1442. 334. Johannes son of Shenoute (line 1) occurs as a witness in P.KRU 65.15. Papnoute son of Phoibammon (line 5) is the taxpayer in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 273 (written by Johannes son of Lazarus). Moses son of Victor (line 8) appears in another name list, O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 14/1, col. 4.1. 335. Wilfong 2004, 545. 336. I am here following the principals of museum archaeology, as discussed in chapter 2.5. 337. This point was first raised by Wilfong (2004, 549–550). 338. The two receipts that Ktistes wrote on the same ostracon for the land tax for different individuals (SB Kopt. I 261, discussed above in n. 57 and 58) may be used to support the suggestion that they were never given to the taxpayer(s) in question. 339. Delattre and Fournet 2014, 238–239. 340. This is clear in Boud’hors 1996, pl. 4B: SB Kopt. II 967vo (note that the image is published upside down in the plate). 341. Such minuscule forms are indicative of Aristophanes’ Greek hand, which is discussed in chapter 3.1. 342. One possibility, not listed here, is that the editio princeps of all receipts overlooked the signature on the reverse, especially if it was faint. A reexamination of the ostraca themselves may change matters. 343. The dates presented by Wilfong (2004, 547–548) need to be backdated (they take the start of the year as Thoth 1, not Pachons 6, for which see chapter 2.4). The one exception to this, if the reading of the indiction year is correct, is O.Kelsey inv. 25114, which dates to 31 August 727 (not, as Wilfong has, 30 August; indiction year 11 was a leap year). SB Kopt. I 263 and 264 were also written in Epiph (both Epiph 3), but the date in the first of these was not read by the editio princeps (Hintze 1974, 278 [no. 21], maintained in SB Kopt. I 263), although ⲓ̈is clear on the accompanying plate, as already noted in Gonis 2000a, 202. 344. The original editor, Schiller, misread the abbreviated writing of nomisma, and his translation consequently omits this information. 345. Fugitives are especially well attested in the Greek and Coptic papyri from Aphrodito in the early eighth century (Bell 1908, 107–112). Greek documents refer to them as fugitives (φυγάδες). In the Coptic texts, they are normally simply referred to as “people,” although the term “stranger” (ϣⲙⲙⲟ) is used in P.Ryl.Copt. 277. These documents attest to the wide diffusion of fugitives throughout the countryside. The Coptic guarantee declaration P.Lond. IV 1518 records the receipt of six families (totaling twenty-two people altogether) that had been found in the Psoi nome, while P.Lond. IV 1521 records the receipts of families (eight people in all) found in the Antinoite nome. These people were retained by local officials until they were required to hand them over to Arab officials. Flight was taken seriously and punished severely. P.Lond. IV 1384 shows that heavy fines were imposed on fugitives (who also received forty lashes and other physical punishments), those who gave them shelter, and the local officials, while rewards were given to informers. Communal responsibility for taxation, as discussed in section 4.1 in relation to P.CLT 6, meant that the flight of such individuals increased the burden on the remaining villagers. 346. Sahl was pagarch during the 720s and 730s, for which see chapter 2.4. 347. Ropework and basketry is a well-known monastic occupation, in the literary, documentary, and archaeological record; see Winlock and Crum 1926, 73–75, 155. For modern—yet still highly informative—evidence for ropework and basketry, see Wipszycka 2009, 533–545. 348. The permit that the authorities request for the monks is termed a sigellia (ⲥⲓⲅⲉⲗⲗⲓⲛ, σιγίλλιον), an official order that could only be issued from the office of the amir. Similar Coptic sigellia as permits are known from elsewhere: the small fragment P.Lond. IV 1633 preserves a request for a pass for men from Aphrodito to travel (the destination is lost in lacuna), and CPR IV 20 (= SB Kopt. II 919) is a permit for a monk from the monastery of Apa Jeremias at Saqqara, literally for “Egypt” (as no specific destination is mentioned, this may cover any

substantial movement away from the monastery). These permits concern long-distance, rather than shortdistance, travel. Sijpesteijn 2013 (96–98 with further references) deals with the process of obtaining such passes for safe conduct. 349. See Delattre 2007b, for a discussion on recent scholarship for these texts; Selander 2015, 88–90, for the most recent discussion of travel in early Islamic Egypt, including mention of the different types of passes and permits that were required. 350. For this construction, which is rare in Thebes, see the discussion in chapter 6.2. 351. The officials do not personally sign any of Aristophanes’ five texts. This is not true of all such documents, as a number are signed, such as O.Vind.Copt. 56 (= P.Schutzbriefe 18), in which Kale gave his consent (one Paulos acts as amanuensis for him), and O.Vind.Copt. 64 (= P.Schutzbriefe 47), which Petros signed (a Petros also signed P.Schutzbriefe 5, written by Psate). However, in each instance, the officials are not named in the beginning of the document, and the practice is not the same as that found in Aristophanes’ texts. 352. Greek παράγω is used in Coptic legal texts with a range of meaning, whether “to pass by” or “to transgress,” including to bring legal proceedings against a party; see, e.g., P.Mon.Apollo 50.12–13: ⲉⲃϣⲁⲛⲡⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟⲕ “If he sues you.” 353. Psate may be identified with a witness to P.KRU 35.98–99, who employs the same orthography of ⲡⲉϣⲁⲧⲉ (Peshate). Shenoute son of Petros appears in the name list O.Vind.Copt. 118.1–2 (which could be connected to tax collection, for which see section 4.4) and the account O.Medin.HabuCopt. 16.9. As both names are very common, it is possible that these documents refer to different men. 354. On Aristophanes’ (possibly confused) use of this title, see chapter 2.4. 355. Georgios’ name appears as signatory in P.Schutzbriefe 76, but the beginning of the text is lost, where we also expect to find the official’s name (cf., e.g., the permits by Aristophanes, as well as P.Schutzbriefe 9, 22, 29, 30, and 43, which are of the same type, beginning παρά NN). 356. Till 1962, 63. These attestations—most of which are undated—are not included in Till’s chronological list of Djeme’s officials, that is, dioiketes and lashanes (Till 1962, 234–235). 357. Other scribes were also involved, such as Comes in P.Schutzbriefe 60 and the deacon Niharau in O.Crum 107 (= P.Schutzbriefe 50). Both of these documents are issued by lashanes, Severos and Johannes in the first case and Swai in the second. The dates of both texts are problematic, and they may predate Psate; Till (1962, 234) states that P.Schutzbriefe 60 may be as early as 695. 358. The Aphrodito material is discussed further in chapter 6.2. 359. For example, arrears are mentioned in gold taxes (P.Lond. IV 1357, 1365, 1373, 1380), the embole (P.Lond. IV 1370, in which Aphrodito was in arrears by thirteen hundred artabae), extraordinary taxes (P.Lond. IV 1397), and other fines (P.Lond. IV 1359). 360. P.Lond. IV 1398 is the only letter concerning arrears in Aphrodito that is issued by Qurra’s predecessor, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Malik. 361. So argues Papaconstantinou (2010, 71). 362. The grammar of the Coptic is here problematic. The text literally states, “You, however, of Psoi wanted to appoint two scribes” (ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲉⲣⲉⲙⲯⲟⲓ ⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉⲧⲱϣ ⲅⲣⲁⲙⲙ(ⲁⲧⲉⲩⲟⲥ) ⲥⲛⲁⲩ). I follow the original editor in assuming a mistake here. 363. In this, he is followed by Sijpesteijn (2013, 158–159): “These villagers were responsible not only for the collection and delivery of taxes but also acted as guarantors for the complete payment, hence the importance of sound financial and social status.” 364. Bell 1926, 279. 365. Aristophanes’ elite status is discussed in chapter 6.1. 366. Wilfong 2002, 51–54. This house, as Wilfong notes, would be typical of houses in the town. 367. Römer (2004–2005, 98–100, 102) discusses many of these features and has mapped them onto a composite drawing by Hölscher (1954, pls. 41–42) of houses 8 and 45. This drawing is similar in layout to Wilfong’s drawing of Elizabeth’s house. 368. The complexity of the street layout is especially evident in sections L–O, houses 10–12, in the plan by Hölscher (1934, pl. 32). Other named streets in the village that occur in Aristophanes’ texts

include Rempshumare Street (literally “People of Pshumare Street”) and Pailakene Street, while others received descriptive names, including directional designations and the identification “blind street”: see RГ¶mer 2004–2005, 84–86; Timm 1984–2007, 3:1018–1019; Wilfong 2002, 9. “Blind street” is translated literally by Timm as “BlindenstraГџe,” but Schiller (1953, 363, 375) interpreted this designation as “dead-end,” which RГ¶mer follows (“Sackgasse”), noting examples where such a street leads directly to a house, which would be the final point of the dead end. This interpretation is a possibility, but other options include either a narrow street left in perpetual shadow by overhanging buildings or subterranean tunnels, such as are described and illustrated by HГ¶lscher (1954, 50 and pl. 41): houses 93 and 100 were accessed by such a tunnel (or blind alley). 369. RГ¶mer (2004–2005, 98–100, 102) only includes the evidence for the brothers’ shares, not the sister’s, which is the only one not written on papyrus. 370. Wilfong (2002, 51) notes that this space was especially associated with women (and menstruation), but here it clearly went to one of the brothers. Examples of stairwells, which give an impression of the space created, are available in HГ¶lscher 1954, pl. 30B, (house 77). 371. In these Coptic documents, the term most commonly used is вІҐвІ©вІ™вІЎвІџвІҐвІ“вІџвІ› (ПѓПЌОјПЂОїПѓО№ОїОЅ), but, in this time and place, it no longer retained its classical associations with dining: see Alston 2002, 84–85; Cromwell 2013b, 222 n. 40; Husson 1983, 267–271. As such, it should simply be translated as “room,” thereby removing any connotations of its use as a specific social space. 372. See the descriptions in HГ¶lscher 1954, 49–51. Houses 42 and 57 are described as two similar narrow houses. It is possible that this house was such a conjoined building. 373. This architectural form is common in all periods of Egyptian history: see Husson 1983, 77. However, as Daniel (2010, 152–157) notes, the exedra could also have doors that could be locked. 374. П«вІЏвІЈвІ‰ literally means “threshing floor.” Wilfong (2002, 53) translates the term as “grain storage area” in reference to the house of Elizabeth and Abigaia. 375. In earlier periods, the katagaion is usually associated with spacious urban houses; see Husson 1983, 131–133. The reference to the kamara (вІ•вІЃвІ™вІЃвІЈвІ‰, ОєО±ОјО¬ПЃО±) in P.KRU 25 may also refer to a basement, but that term can refer to vaulted constructions of different types, as discussed by Husson (1983, 122–128 and figs. 19–21). 376. Schiller (1953, 367) described the term вІѓвІЃвІ“вІ™вІџвІџвІ© as “water-conduits,” noting, “The exact meaning is unknown. The reference may be to water-wheels by which water coul [sic] have been brought into the house, or to water troughs connected with the wheels, or the word might refer to some other aspect of sewage or of toilet facilities.” The term, in fact, refers to the water containers positioned in a niche in the entrance room, as evident in the archaeological record: see HГ¶lscher 1954, 59–60 and pl. 36; Wilfong 2002, 51 n. 12. 377. This is the equivalent of Greek О±бЅђО»О®, which, in Egypt, mostly designates a courtyard or animal enclosure; see Daniel 2010, 23. 378. Shared courtyards are visible in HГ¶lscher 1934, pl. 32; see, in particular, houses 9 and 19, 8 and 4, and 19, 20, and 21 in M11. 379. There has been no study on the different categories of land mentioned in Djeme texts and their use. As Wilfong (1999, 218) notes, legal documents involving agricultural land provide more information about the owners of the land than about the uses to which the land was put (Tonio Sebastian Richter’s forthcoming study on Coptic land leases will prove a significant addition to our knowledge in this area). The different terms that appear at Djeme are noted in Cromwell 2013b, 221 n. 37. 380. Sale of movable commodities are rare at Thebes, although they do exist; for example, P.KRU 34 records the sale of a silver item (see the reedition and commentary in Cromwell 2014–2015). The sale of camels and donkeys should also be noted: see, e.g., O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 76/1 (camel) and O.Medin.HabuCopt. 80 (donkey). Some documents that are framed as loans with payment in kind, such as P.CLT 10 (linen; see Cromwell and Grossman 2010), may actually be sales of goods with advanced payment. Concerning looms specifically, despite their size and form, they were still movable items, as demonstrated by P.Mon.Epiph. 352, in which two camels are used to transport a loom. O.Crum Ad. 46, a letter without names, is a request for a loom: “When your fraternity wrote to us the first time, saying, вЂSend me the loom,’ I replied to you, вЂI cannot do so.В .В .В .’ Then, behold, you wrote to us

again, as you did in your initial madness, saying, вЂSend me the loom’” (lines 1–9). For the archaeological evidence of loom pits and weaving, see the works of Johanna Sigl on looms at the monastery of Apa Paul (Eicher, Beckh, and Sigl 2009, 98–100), at Amarna as comparanda (Sigl 2011), and more generally in late antique Egypt (Sigl 2007), as well as Bechtold 2007, for the pits at the monastery of Cyriacus in western Thebes (about which see BГЎcs 2000; Hasznos 2013). 381. Outside a monastic context, there is only limited textual evidence for weavers at Thebes. A rare example is Pnae the weaver, who appears in O.CrumST 130.1, an account for stibium (kohl). Yet weaving was clearly an important occupation. Apart from clothing, a large quantity of linen was required for burial purposes, for wrapping the body (as illustrated in Castel 1979), and its production is attested especially well in monastic contexts, for which see Wipszycka 2011, 173–182. Weaving also constituted one of the principal activities of the monk Frange: see Heurtel 2003–2004; Boud’hors and Heurtel 2010, 19. 382. Rempshumare Street appears a couple of times, including in P.KRU 15.31, 39. In P.KRU 27, the word П©вІ“вІЈ “street” is omitted. 383. These oaths begin with the phrase ПЈвІЃ вІЎвІ‰вІ“вІ§вІџвІЎвІџвІҐ “By this topos” (Aristophanes adopts a variant spelling, ПЈвІ‰-). This is an abbreviated version of the oath, which is in its full form in O.Medin.HabuCopt. 89 and 90, where the name of the party swearing the oath is included, followed by вІ‰вІ“вІ±вІЈвІ• “I swear.” 384. These two documents allow us to follow the history of the two plots of land across several owners. Moving backward in time, from the last known to its earliest owners, the line of ownership is Aaron son of Shenoute в†’ Tagape and Esther, daughter and granddaughter of Solomon в†’ Solomon son of Moses в†’ David son of Saoul, Koloje daughter of Paham, and Tachel daughter of Martha в†’ their parents в†’ their grandparents (the names of these older generations are not stated). Solomon purchased the land from David and company for three and one-third holokottinoi in P.KRU 3, and Tagape and Esther sold it to Aaron for the reduced price of three holokottinoi. Tagape and Esther do not state how they came to own the land, and Solomon was still alive at this point. One of the most interesting points about these plots is that they are referred to as the вІ›вІ•вІЃП© вІ›вІ…вІЈвІЃвІ™вІЎвІ‰ вІ™вІЎП©вІЃвІ…вІЈвІџвІҐ вІ›вІ›вІ‰вІЎвІ“вІҐвІ•вІџвІЎвІџвІҐ вІЃвІЎвІЃ вІ•вІ“вІЈвІ™вІЃвІ›вІџвІҐ “cabbage land of the holy bishop Apa Germanos” (P.KRU 3.21–22); вІ…вІЈвІЃвІ™вІЎвІ‰ is likely Greek ОєПЃО¬ОјОІО· “cabbage.” This is surely a reference to a topos of Apa Germanos (it is not listed in P.KRU Index VII: Kirchen, KlГ¶ster, вІ§вІџвІЎвІџвІ“). This indicates that this land, situated within the village and surrounded by houses on three sides, was arable or perhaps a garden (it is designated вІ•вІЃП© “land” rather than вІЃвІ›П© “courtyard”), which would account for its high sale price. It might also suggest that the plots were outside the great perimeter wall of the village, as the land inside, В with its dense stratigraphy comprising several centuries of occupation levels,В was unlikely to be fit for this purpose. 385. P.KRU 17 was acquired at the same time as many of Aaron’s documents, but this acquisition group includes many sale documents from the village, not all of which are connected; see Cromwell 2007. 386. Till (1954, 30) notes the preference for the male descendants in these situations. 387. The names shown here with question marks are damaged. Till did not include Rebecca in his prosopography, but this is surely how the traces are to be read. He refers to Anna and Tswai as daughters of Cosma (Till 1962, 59, 225), but this is certainly a misunderstanding, on Till’s part, of “our late father Cosma,” which is a reference to the father of the first party. Compare P.KRU 10, where the members of the first party, the children of Psate, refer to “our father Psate,” but this reference does not include the second party, whose father, Germanos, is referred to as “your late father.” The traces that survive show that the patronymic of the three sisters ends in -вІ“вІџвІҐ or -вІ™вІџвІҐ, with the first option being likelier. This ending cannot be for makarios as an epithet, as no name follows, and Aristophanes rarely wrote the epithet in full (there are only four examples of this: P.KRU 10.13, 10.20, 10.26, and 43.11). The name Makarios, which is attested as a personal name in Thebes (Till 1962, 134–135) and elsewhere (Hasitzka 2007, 58), is possible here, but many other names would also fit the lacuna. For example, restricting the possibilities just to Aristophanes’ dossier, the following names are potential alternatives: Antonios, Arsenios, Demetrios, Elisaios, Georgios, Leontios, Mathaios. 388. For вІ›вІЏвІҐвІ‰, see Crum 1939, 229a, where the alternative meaning “seat” is suggested, but this reading scarcely improves our understanding of the text.

389. It is probably too tenuous to connect this bench to the original decoration of the ancient temple. For example, on the south wall of the first hypostyle hall, an enthroned Amun-Re crowns a kneeling Rameses III. It may be possible that the bench mentioned in P.KRU 43 refers to a large bench or seat in such a scene. However, the internal decoration of the interior of the temple—especially that in the rear, which was used for houses—almost certainly did not have the visibility required to be a point of reference. 390. вІЎвІ‰вІЈ- is not common and is most often found in place-names; see Crum 1939, 267a. 391. For other land categories in the Djeme documents, see n. 14. 392. This interpretation follows the description presented by Daniel (2010, 131–133). Alston (2002, 60) states that there are no examples of the sale of О±бјґОёПЃО№О± separate from the house, as opposed to courtyards that could be bought and sold as separate entities, as is also seen in the Coptic evidence from Djeme; the О±бјґОёПЃО№ОїОЅ was therefore an integral feature of a house. This understanding appears to fit this feature’s treatment in P.KRU 43, where it is presented as an individual component of the house and, thus, could be sold—as a single room or in parts—in the same way as any other room. 393. The specific location of the storeroom (вІ§вІЃвІ‘вІЏ) is a partial later addition, with вІ‘вІЏ “the front, belly” added later; see chapter 3.2. 394. In earlier Egyptian, this measure was the equivalent of one hundred square cubits (a cubit is approximately fifty centimeters, producing an area of around fifty square meters), an area equating to an aroura, a modern acre (ДЊernГЅ 1976, 164). вІҐПЇвІ±П©/вІҐвІ§вІ‰вІ“вІ±П©вІ‰ is also attested in earlier periods as referring to a field of this size. 395. вІ•вІ‰вІ—вІ™, from П-(вІ‰)вІ—вІ™ (Crum 1939, 811a), is probably derived from Greek ОєО±О»О¬ОјО·, which is especially connected with the straw or stalk of wheat (ДЊernГЅ 1976, 328) 396. The Greek evidence for бјЂПЂОїОёО®ОєО· is rare. Husson (1983, 41) notes that this term was applied to structures with a range of forms and functions and that its application reflects local use of the term. 397. This was Till’s understanding of the text; see Till 1962, 207. 398. вІ§вІЃвІЈвІ•вІѓвІ±вІ• вІ‰П©вІџвІ©вІ› вІ‰вІЈвІџПҐ П©вІ“ вІЎвІЃвІЇвІ“вІҐ вІ›ПЈвІџвІЎ вІ›П©вІ“вІЈ П©вІ“вІЈ П©вІ“вІ±вІ±ПҐ вІ‰П©вІџвІ©вІ› вІ‰вІЈвІџПҐ “so you enter it through the first [ПЈвІџвІЎ for ПЈвІџвІЈвІЎ?] arch [бјЂП€ОЇП‚] of the street toward it” (lines 55–57). The combination of prepositions and adverbs in П©вІ“вІ±вІ±ПҐ вІ‰П©вІџвІ©вІ› вІ‰вІЈвІџПҐ seems largely redundant; вІ‰П©вІџвІ©вІ› П©вІ“вІ±вІ±ПҐ is preferable. 399. See Till 1962, 72, for Daniel son of Pators. 400. This statement does not include witnesses, some of whom appear in several of Aristophanes’ texts, such as Marcus son of Papnoute discussed in chapter 3.4), while others are well-known individuals in the village, such as the dioiketes Chael son of Psemo (witness to P.KRU 17) and the scribe David son of Psate (witness to P.KRU 43; for his connection with Aristophanes, see chapter 6.3). 401. Boulard 1912, 45–46 n. 1. 402. See Heuser 1929, 40. 403. This is not a comment on Elizabeth’s background but is representative of the range of Egyptian and non-Egyptian names used at Djeme. 404. A small number of names occur elsewhere (e.g., Damianos son of Cosma, the first party in P.KRU 15, appears as witness in P.KRU 22.66, where he wrote his own statement, as he did in P.KRU 15.95–96), but these occurrences provide no further information pertinent to Aaron’s texts or to Aristophanes more generally. 405. For this topos, which was used as the location for the making of oaths and arbitration (P.KRU 36.40, 44.22), see Winlock and Crum 1926, 112. 406. Phoibammon son of Stephanos (P.KRU 3.75–76) and Joseph son of Abraham (P.KRU 105.30) were priests of the topos, while one Georgios (P.KRU 44.125) was its archdeacon. 407. Schiller (1953, 346) identified this Abigaia with Abigaia daughter of Samuel and Tshenoute, whose property disputes with her aunt, Elizabeth daughter of Epiphanius, are recorded in a number of settlements (P.KRU 35 and 36). I agree with Till (1962, 49) and Wilfong (2002, 66–67) that these were two different women with the name Abigaia. 408. The siblings are known by Greek and Egyptian names: Thekla is also Tserkah, and Arsenios is also Shenout (see Cromwell 2011, 81 n. 7). Aristophanes only uses the Greek versions of their names.

409. Schiller 1953; Wilfong 2002, 66–68. 410. As stated in Wilfong 2002, 67, the sisters inherit from their father, not their mother: вІЃвІ“ПЈвІ±вІЎ вІЎвІЏвІ“ вІ™вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІ›вІ™вІЃвІ•(вІЃвІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ) вІ›вІ‰вІ“вІ±вІ§ вІЌвІЃвІ-вІЃвІЈвІ“вІЃвІ™вІ› вІЎвІЃвІЃвІ›П© “I purchased the house of your late father Zacharias” (P.KRU 25.10–11; see, similarly, P.KRU 45.18–19). 411. Penal clauses in the Djeme texts include a financial penalty should the terms of the deed be transgressed. This is normally set at an exorbitantly high level (typically thirty-six holokottinoi in Aristophanes’ texts), but the reality presented in this situation shows that the penalty paid came nowhere near this amount. The penalty set is ten holokottinoi in P.KRU 25.45 but thirty-six holokottinoi in P.KRU 47.65. 412. The specific designation вІ™вІЎвІЏвІ“ вІ›вІ§вІ•вІЃвІ™вІЃвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎП©вІЏвІ§ is not identical to that in P.KRU 47.22, вІ§вІЎвІЏПЈвІЈвІ‰ вІ™вІЎвІЏвІ“ вІ‰вІ§вІ™вІ™вІЃвІ© вІ™вІЎП©вІЏвІ§, which excludes mention of вІ§вІ•вІЃвІ™вІЃвІЈвІ‰. Schiller translated this passage, “from (?) the cellar northward.” A literal rendering of вІ™вІЎП©вІЏвІ§ as “northward” does not explain the situation here. The use of this term does not mean “upward” or “above” (for which вІ›вІ§вІЎвІ‰ would be used) but signifies direction in relation to the four cardinal points and is here interpreted as indicating the rear part of the house; that is, Abessa acquired the rear half of the house in its entirety (including the basement). 413. вІЃвІ§вІ‰вІ©вІЈвІ‰ вІЎ[вІ‰вІ›]вІ‡вІџвІќвІџвІ§ [вІ›]П«вІџвІ‰вІ“вІҐ ⲛ’ⲁⲙⲓⲣⲁ вІ•вІ‰вІ—вІ‰вІ©вІ‰: Crum suggested that вІ§вІ‰вІ©вІЈвІ‰ might be an Arabic name (see P.KRU Appendix IV: Arabisch), yielding the translation “Teure, our illustrious amir, commanded.” If this is the case, the dispute was presented to КїAmr (П©вІЃвІ™вІ‰вІЈ), the representative of the amir (pagarch), but the amir—Teure—settled it. Schiller (1953, 345 and n. 109) also chose to translate вІ§вІ‰вІ©вІЈвІ‰ as a name, but he noted that it “may not be a name” or that the name might refer not to the amir but to his representative. The second option necessitates the representative having two names. It is possible (and, I believe, more likely) that вІ§вІ‰вІ©вІЈвІ‰ is not a name but a contracted spelling of ОґОµПЌП„ОµПЃОїП‚, “second,” and therefore a virtual synonym with вІЎвІЈвІџвІҐвІ±вІЎвІџвІ› in line 15 (after which, genitival вІ›- [>вІ™]—which is included in line 15—was omitted). 414. Following Till’s dates, the dispute between Abessa and Takoum took place the decade previous to those of Arsenios and Thekla. Wilfong (2002, 67) had already dated the events in question forward, to dates corresponding to those proposed in table 2.2. Wilfong places P.KRU 56 as the last document between brother and sister, occurring after the litigations they had undertaken together. P.KRU 56 is at least earlier than P.KRU 50 (738): the document was written while Chael son of Psmo was dioiketes, and their father, Georgios, has the epithet makarios in P.KRU 50 but not in P.KRU 56 (however, for the problems with the use of this term, see chapter 2 n. 42). It seems that fighting among themselves did not prevent these siblings from cooperating at the same time. 415. In the text, two tremises were awarded to Leontios and his siblings, and one tremis each went to Paulos and Marcus; presumably, therefore, Ananias, Charis, and Nemphe, mentioned in lines 61–62, are Leontios’ siblings. 416. вІ™вІ‰вІ›вІ§вІџвІ“вІЈвІ‰ вІ‡вІ‰ [.В .В .В В . вІџ]вІ©вІ±вІЈП© вІЎвІЈвІџ (line 6): the loss of the conjugation base and subject obscures the meaning. вІџвІ©вІ±вІЈП©, meaning “to be open, free” or “to set free, open, renounce” (Crum 1939, 491b), does not refer to the physical opening of the door. As this section concerns additional financial arrangements between Thekla and Arsenios, on the one hand, and Leontios and company, on the other, it presumably concerns arrangements for access to the property: Leontios and his siblings provided access to the door. 417. For such spaces in the archaeological record, see, e.g., houses 4, 41, 45, 77, 78, 92, and 101 in HГ¶lscher 1954 (pls. 41–43); for their use (especially for women), see Wilfong 2002, 51. 418. The writing of вІЎвІ‰вІ›-, although faint, is certain and cannot be understood as a misspelling of the second-person feminine pronoun, which Aristophanes misspelled elsewhere as the masculine form; see Cromwell 2011, 77–78 and table 2. 419. P.KRU 116, 52, and 53 are mentioned by Wilfong (2002, 83, 127, and 133 respectively), but only to further elucidate more general points under discussion. Cromwell (2014) uses Daniel’s taxation texts as

a case study in annual tax payments. 420. Daniel’s other daughter, Catherine, also lived next to this house, in a home described as belonging to her husband, Athanasios. 421. The second party (i.e., the loaner) is a Daniel without patronymic, and Daniel son of Pachom acts as witness at the end of the document. It is not beyond reason that the two Daniels are the same; see, further, Cromwell 2014, 234. 422. The term used is “took by stealth”: ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ϩⲉⲛⲥⲕⲉⲩⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛⲃⲓⲧⲟⲩ ⲛ[ϫⲓ]ⲟⲩⲉ “about the items that you stole / took by stealth” (P.KRU 52.9). 423. In the first publication of this text, P.Lond.Copt. I 426, Crum interpreted this differently. After their inability to retrieve their stolen goods, the first party “at the intercession of the local magnates had been content with 10 2/3 solidi.” The idiom ⲕⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉ- means, rather, “to release, forgive” (Richter 2008, 205: “wir haben euch zehn Holok. erlassen”). An agreement was reached whereby the second party neither had to return the goods nor had to provide their monetary equivalent. 424. For more on this scenario of Daniel providing aid to a widow, see Cromwell, forthcoming. 425. Elizabeth’s family archive lies at the heart of Schiller 1953 and Wilfong 2002, 47–66. 426. Indeed, while it is convenient to refer to this archive as that of the “family of Germanos,” it should be referred to by its ultimate holder, Pisenthios son of Shenoute (see chapter 2.5). 427. The land sold here has a value more than three times that of any other plot with the same designation, namely, ⲕⲁϩ. The land Aristophanes sold in P.KRU 11 was worth two holokottinoi but is only a part share. The combined property of Abessa and Takoum (see section 5.4) had a value of twelve holokottinoi, but this included a house, a courtyard, and a workroom, and the value of the individual components is never stated. 428. For the family history with the topos, tracing back at least five generations, see Cromwell 2013b. 429. The “to you” here is an error by Aristophanes: the first party are selling the plot of land to the second party, but this narrative refers to the original sale, as correctly indicated in the text that follows, and should have omitted “to you.” 430. The Arab official at Antinoopolis is referred to not by name but as the dux (δούξ)—not the amir, as is standard for other senior Arab officials in the Djeme documents (see chapter 2.4 and chapter 6.2). Aristophanes may have been aware that dux was the title of one of the most senior officials in the country, but its use by this period is antiquated, unless it is another example of the appropriation and reshaping of titles by the new rulers (see chapter 6.2). For the history of the dux at Antinoopolis after the Islamic conquest, see Legendre 2013. 431. P.KRU 10 was written on the verso of P.KRU 76, one of two copies of the testament of Susanna, mother of Germanos, the other being P.KRU 66. Both testaments were written by the priest Comes (Till 1962, 123) and predate the sale by an unknown period. P.KRU 76 and 10 formed part of the personal archive of Shenoute son of Germanos, which subsequently came into the possession of his son, Pisenthios (see chapter 2.5). Susanna’s testament has been the subject of several discussions, and multiple translations are available: Cromwell 2013b; Cromwell 2016; MacCoull 2009, 71–77; Schaten 1997; Stern 1884, 143–152; Stern 1888; Till 1954, 159–169; Wickham 2005, 425; Wilfong 2002, 135–136; Wilfong 2003b, 213–215. 432. Tsone is referred to as deceased in P.KRU 40.4 and is represented in the settlement by her son, Sanagape. 433. For what this reveals about the processes of dividing property in such disputes, see Cromwell 2013b, 223. 434. For Marcus as the scribe of this document, see n. 97. 435. Shenoute is the main force behind much of the property acquisition recorded in the Germanos archive, as discussed in Cromwell 2013b. 436. The events in question are discussed in greater detail in Cromwell 2013b. 437. The superiors of the monastery appear in P.CLT 1, 2, 4, and 5; for their succession, see P.CLT p. 16. 438. Perhaps they had business at the monastery at Deir el-Naqlun, for which see Gabra 2002, 64–71; Godlewski 2005; and further references therein. 439. Child donations are the group of documents from Thebes that have received the most discussion over

the past century (see, most recently and focusing specifically on this practice, Papaconstantinou 2002a, 2002b; Richter 2005), including in more general studies on the phenomenon (e.g., Boswell 1988, 237–238). 440. The history of the superiors of the monastery of Apa Phoibammon is dealt with at length in Godlewski 1986, 60–76. See chapter 2.4 in the present study for alternative dates for Cyriacus son of Damianos. 441. It is tempting to identify this Mariham with the daughter of Daniel attested in P.KRU 116. However, in that text, Mariham writes together with one Papnoute son of Matthias, who seems to be her husband, even though he is not explicitly identified as such (they together write to “our father”). If the same woman is attested in both documents, it is possible that she was married multiple times, but this cannot be definitively proven. 442. Chael did not bear this title in this text; for him and his dates otherwise, see chapter 2.4. 443. The paleography of this text and the problems surrounding it are discussed in chapter 3.3. 444. This early date is given because Chael son of Psemo occurs here with the title dioiketes, which he certainly held during the mid-730s (he is named as such in P.KRU 106, which is absolutely dated). 445. The final lines of P.KRU 94 are damaged, and Daniel may have acted as witness rather than scribe. Crum (P.KRU Index V: Schreiber) does not hesitate to record Daniel as the scribe, but Till (1962, 72) is more cautious. 446. Godlewski 1986, 76 n. 215. 447. Richter 2005, 254–255. 448. It is possible that these early child donations from the 750s served as models for later donation documents. They were certainly stored at the monastery (see chapter 2.5) and could have been consulted for this purpose. 449. Of the documents that contain reference to Anna and Samuel, only one was written in Thebes. P.KRU 89 was written by the monk Zacharias from the monastery of Apa Pisenthios in the same castrum, Memnomion, but none of the witnesses were from Djeme. P.KRU 96 was written by the monk Elisaios from Ermont, and all of that document’s witnesses came from Ermont or its immediate vicinity. The first party in P.KRU 100, Palote son of Psate, was from Timamen in the Hermonthite nome. One of that document’s witnesses was from Djeme (the priest Apollo), but the scribe Apa Apater, again a monk, provided no further information about himself. 450. Concerning how much scribal services cost in the village, there is no evidence except for O.CrumST 38, a short agricultural contract written on an ostracon, in which the first party states, “We give one menet of the harvest to the one who wrote it.” Otherwise, the only related evidence for the cost of scribal activity that exists from the region concerns the cost of book production. The standard price for an unbound book in Thebes in the seventh and eighth centuries was one tremis, but the cost for a bound volume could be as much as two tremises (Boud’hors 2008a, 160), the same amount found on many tax receipts as individual installments (see chapter 4); see also Kotsifou 2012, 222–223, for the cost of book production. Legal documents must have been significantly cheaper, but no contemporary evidence confirms this (Diocletian’s 301 CE Edict on Maximum Prices probably did not apply to low-level document writing; see Bagnall 2009, 57) or whether prices were calculated on a per-line basis or for the entire document (for such costs in earlier periods, see Skeat 1982). The cost involved would also depend on who supplied the papyrus, which was presumably the scribe, although not always, as documents that were reused were surely supplied by one of the two parties involved; see Cromwell 2013, 231, concerning the reuse of P.KRU 76 for P.KRU 10. Writing shorter texts on ostraca, such as O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88 in this dossier, would have been cheaper still, as the aforementioned example from O.CrumST 38 demonstrates and as Bagnall (2011, 134–135) notes. 451. Other scribes also enjoyed the repeated custom of particular individuals. Of the five documents comprising the archive of Elizabeth daughter of Epiphanius, two were written by Johannes son of Lazarus (P.KRU 35 and 38) and two by Psate son of Pisrael (P.KRU 36 and 37), who are also well-known scribes from Djeme. They each wrote one document in which Abigaia was the first party and one in which Georgios, Elizabeth’s son, was the first party. It is not clear at which party’s behest they wrote, but certainly they were both known to the family (Psate also served as witness to P.KRU 35.106). The scribes Shmentsney son of Shenoute and Shenoute son of Shmentsney wrote, between them, five documents in which Aaron son of Shenoute was the second party: P.KRU 1, 2, 4, 12, and 13 (for Aaron, see chapter 4.3

and the issue of whether this set of documents involves one or two Aarons). 452. See n. 66 above. 453. From the information collated in chapter 4.1, the highest individual annual contribution is that of Elias son of Paulos, whose receipts for tax in the tenth indiction year amount to one and one-third holokottinoi. However, as noted there, the surviving receipts may not represent his entire annual payment. 454. This is discussed further in chapter 6.1. 455. See chapter 6.1. 456. P.KRU 54 records the donation of one tremis to the topos of Apa Psate from the estate of Tsyros: “About the tremis that Tsyros daughter of Takoum gave to the holy Apa Psate, which she donated in her testament that it be given to the holy Apa Psate, here (it is), it has come to me from you, Comes son of Damianos” (P.KRU 54.6–11). 457. Tsyros is omitted from the family tree by Schiller (1953, 374), Till (1962, 233), and Wilfong (2002, 68). 458. See chapter 2.6. 459. In other documents in which a husband acted for his (possibly deceased) wife, the relationship is stated, as, for example, in P.KRU 16: вІЎвІЏвІ“ вІ›вІ§вІЃвІҐП©вІ“вІ™вІ‰ П©вІЈвІЃвІ-ⲏⲗ“the house of my wife Rachel” (lines 14–15); вІ‰вІ“вІҐП©вІЃвІ“ вІ‰вІ“вІЈвІ‰ вІ›вІЎвІ‰вІЎвІЈвІ±вІҐвІ±вІЎвІџвІ› вІ›П©вІЈвІЃвІ-вІЏвІ—вІ§вІЃвІҐП©вІ“вІ™вІ‰ “I write, acting as representative of my wife Rachel” (lines 24–25). 460. If P.KRU 12 and 13 were written for a different Aaron (see section 5.3), this leaves four scribes in the archive. 461. Till 1962, 21. 462. Crum did not include Marcus in his index of scribes (P.KRU Appendix V: Schreiber), but Marcus’ function as the scribe of P.KRU 20 and 111 was noted by Till (1962, 137). 463. The connections between Aristophanes and this younger generation of scribes that wrote in his style (which also includes David son of Psate, named above as the scribe of P.KRU 5) are discussed in chapter 6.3. 464. On the layout of the town, see chapter 5.1. 465. See table 2.2 for the dates of the documents. 466. Naming patterns only occasionally include matronymics: for example, Aaron son of Shenoute and Talek/Elizabeth (P.KRU 14 and 15), Athanasios son of Peloustre and There (P.KRU 9), and Georgios son of Johanna (P.KRU 18). 467. Till (1962) provides a date range of 719–725/6 for the five documents that Johannes wrote. However, in his overview of Johannes’ work (1962, 108), he provides for P.KRU 51 a contradictory date of 739,the year argued for in chapter 2.4 of the present study as Johannes’ last attested date. For his tax receipts, see chapter 4.2. 468. P.KRU 39.41–43: “the house of our late father, situated in Culol Street, which is east of the street of the front door of Johannes (son) of Lazarus.” 469. Other reasons why the chronology of the two scribes does not allow for the existence of a father-son relationship are discussed in chapter 2.4. 470. Till (1962, 107–111) lists over sixty different Theban men called “Johannes.” 471. Cromwell 2011 provides a detailed comparison of the writing of each scribe and the social context of these documents. 472. Paleographic comparisons between the two are presented in Cromwell 2011, table 1. 473. Papaconstantinou 2009, 458. 474. Till 1962, 30. 475. Papaconstantinou (2009, 458) cites Alexandros and Cleonicus as examples of such names among scribes, although it should be noted that these names are the patronymics of the scribes in question: Job son of Alexandros was the scribe of P.KRU 88 (the earliest surviving child donation document, from 734), and the deacon Papas son of Cleonicus wrote P.KRU 93 (another child donation document, addressed to Sauros). Regardless of the social status of scribes, it should be stressed here that neither Job nor Papas can be attributed securely to western Thebes. The first party in P.KRU 88, Theodore son of Aaron, is not associated with a location, but the two witnesses were from Romoou and Timeshor respectively. Both of

these toponyms are Hermonthite, but only the former may be Theban, and at least one of these parties must have traveled to the village, as all men would have been in the same location when the document was drawn up. Similarly, the first party in P.KRU 93, Johannes son of Zacharias, was from Apotei in the Hermonthite nome, and the witnesses all identified themselves as from Ermont (Hermonthis). Nothing associates either scribe with Djeme (or even the mount of Djeme) and its so-called elite. 476. Papaconstantinou 2009, 460–463, focuses primarily on Aristophanes and the reasons for the Greek and Roman features that find expression in his documents. 477. Papaconstantinou 2009, 461. 478. The full list of such names is provided, with references, by Papaconstantinou (2009, 459–460), who notes their diverse origins. 479. See the references in Till 1962, 121–123 and 123–124 respectively). Both names are attested throughout the eighth century. In the mixing of names, note, for example, Constantine son of Ello, who appears in P.KRU 62.10 as a witness (вІЃвІ›вІџвІ• вІ•вІџвІҐвІ§вІЃвІ§вІ‰вІ“вІ›вІ‰ вІЎПЈвІ‰вІЈвІ‰ вІ›П©вІџвІ©вІ—вІџ вІ§вІ‰вІџвІ© вІ™вІ‰вІ§вІЈвІ‰ “I Constantine the son of Ello bear witness”: here the orthography is bad throughout, but this is the fault of the scribe of this text, one Paulos). 480. See n. 505. 481. P.Mon.Epiph. 182.3–5: вІЃвІЈвІ“ вІ…вІЃвІЎвІЏ вІ›М…П-вІҐП©вІЃвІ“М€вІ‰вІѓвІџвІ— вІ›вІЃвІЎП©М…вІЈвІ±вІ™вІЃвІ“вІџвІҐ “Please write to Romaios” (or, alternatively, to Ap(a) Romaios or “the Roman,” in reference to an official); P.Mon.Epiph. 269.21: [В .В .В .В ]вІ‰ вІ‰вІҐП©М…вІ™М…вІ«вІЃвІ™вІЎвІЃвІ›вІ‰ вІ‰вІ§ПЈвІ‰вІ‰вІЈвІ‰ вІ›М…вІ•вІЃвІ—вІЃвІЎвІЏвІҐвІ“вІџвІҐ вІ™М…вІЎвІ‰вІЈвІ…вІЃвІ™вІ“вІџвІҐвІ§вІ‰ “[В .В .В .В ] as she is in Phampane, she being the daughter of Calapesios (son) of Pergamios”; P.Mon.Epiph. 311.6: [В .В .В .В ]ПЈ вІЃвІҐвІѓвІ±вІ• вІЃвІҐвІ›М… вІЎвІЃвІ©вІ—вІџвІҐ вІ™М…вІЎвІЈвІ“М€вІЎвІџвІҐвІ‰вІ™М…вІ›М…вІЃ[В .В .В .В ] “[В .В .В .В ] she went and brought Paulos (son) of Praipos(itos) and [В .В .В .В ]”; P.Mon.Epiph. 435.8: [В .В .В .В ]вІ“вІҐвІ§вІџвІҐ вІЎвІ•вІ©вІЈвІ“вІҐ П©вІЈвІџвІ‡вІЃвІ•вІ‰ вІЎвІЃвІ›[В .В .В .В ] “[В .В .В .В ] the master Rhodake the [В .В .В .В ].” 482. The list I supply is updated from that compiled in P.Mon.Apollo p. 43 (table 7). A number of tax demands do not preserve the name of the official: BKU III 340; P.Bal. 131 and 402; and P.Mon.Apollo 29 and 30. 483. See SB XVIII 13247, in which this official appears together with several others (discussed in n. 38). 484. RaЕЎД«d is also attested, in Coptic documents, in CPR II 123, IV 1 (in which he is not named, but the document bears his seal, for which see Sijpesteijn 2012, 166), and IV 51. A number of Greek tax demands issued from his office have also survived: SB XVIII 13870 (see Worp 1985), Stud.Pal. VIII 1083 and 1195, and Stud.Pal. X 197 (see Worp 1984). The list of Arab names in Coptic documents that is compiled as an annex in Legendre 2014 is an invaluable source for attestations of Arab officials. 485. YazД«d is also attested in P.Ryl.Copt. 199. 486. For the Arabic rendering, see Bell 1926, 267 (based on Josef Karabacek’s identification of the name with КїAб№-iyyah b. Ju’aid); Bell 1951, 311; Gascou and Worp 1982, 85; Gonis and Morelli 2000, 194; Sijpesteijn 2013, 119. For the Coptic tax demands issued from Atias’ office—comprising CPR IV 3, 4, and 6 and SB Kopt. IV 1783 and 1785—see Cromwell 2013a. 487. For Sahl, see chapter 2.4. 488. The name is perhaps to be rendered instead as ApakurГ©/Apakurou; see Delattre 2008, 80, 810, followed by Sijpesteijn 2013, 203 n. 460. 489. This is the same formula that Aristophanes used in his passes for safe conduct; see chapter 4.5. 490. See chapter 4.3. 491. For sealing practices in the early Islamic administration, see Sijpesteijn 2012. A number of tax receipts from Middle Egypt, in the archive of Cosma son of Prow (three of which are published in Gonis 2000b and Stewart 1983) in the University of Michigan Papyrus collection, still have their seals intact, but the seals may be connected to the first use of the papyri (each tax demand represents a secondary use of the papyrus); see Cromwell 2017 for the receipts. All such seals, some of which bear Arabic text while others have nonalphabetic images, need to be imaged (using specialist techniques suitable for three-dimensional objects)

and analyzed as a group. A number of contemporary seals are included in Wassiliou 1999, but the images there are generally of too low quality for comparative analysis. 492. Theban attestations of ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї· are collected in Cromwell 2013a, 284–285 n. 16, although this list is by no means exhaustive. For П…бј±бЅёП‚ in Theban texts, see the appropriate references in FГ¶rster 2002, 831–832. 493. In a forthcoming thorough study of this construction, the cleft sentence вІЎвІ‰ + the circumstantial, Richter discusses its etymology and provides all known instances of its occurrence in documentary texts, in its three respective forms: вІЎвІ‰вІ‰ПҐвІҐвІ±вІ§вІ™, вІЎвІ‰ПҐвІҐвІ±вІ§вІ™, and вІЎПҐвІҐвІ±вІ§вІ™. 494. Kahle 1954, 184–186, collects examples of вІЎвІ‰ПҐвІҐП©вІЃвІ“ and so forth known at that time. The majority of these belong to his groups C (“texts from Oxyrhynchus to Bawit, in particular the Ashmunein collections”) and D (“texts from Assiut to Abydos, in particular those from Bala’izah, Wadi Sarga and Aphrodito”). Delattre 2005 focuses on one group of twenty documents containing the formula вІЎвІ‰вІ§вІ›П-вІЃвІ©вІџвІ›NN вІЎвІ‰ПҐвІ§вІџвІ—вІ™вІЃ вІ‰ПҐвІҐП©вІЃвІ“ вІ™вІЎвІ‰ПҐП«вІџвІ‰вІ“вІҐ “It is your servant NN who dares write to his master,” updating Kahle’s list. As Delattre concludes, “cette tournure est caractГ©ristique de la Moyenne-Г‰gypte, et plus particuliГЁrement du nome hermopolite” (105). 495. Some of these examples are partially reconstructed in their editiones principes. The variant вІ›вІЃвІ“ вІ›вІ‰ вІ‰ПЈвІЃвІҐвІ§вІЃП©вІџвІ• вІ™вІ™вІџвІџвІ© вІ›вІ…вІ§вІЃвІЃвІ© occurs in SB Kopt. IV 1781.2 and 1783.3, and we find simply вІЃвІҐвІ§вІЃП©вІџвІ• in CPR IV 3.2 and 6.2. The relevant section in P.Ryl.Copt. 378.3 is too damaged to allow identification of the formula. 496. These aspects of the demands are discussed in more detail in Cromwell 2013b. 497. Aristophanes’ use of bigraphism is discussed in chapter 3.1 and chapter 4.2, and the nature of his Greek script is discussed further below. 498. Images of several of these texts are available online: CPR IV 3 (P.Vindob. K 4905), 4 (P.Vindob. K 4931), 5 (P.Vindob. K 4955), and 6 (P.Vindob. K 1341) can be consulted in the online catalog of the Austrian National Library. For images of the two Akoris demands, see P.Akoris pls. 131–132. For the language of the tax demands, see Cromwell 2013b, 284–287. 499. It would be useful to compare the writing of ПѓбЅєОЅ ОёОµбї· in P.Bal. 130 Appendix A to other examples from Thebes, but this necessitates access to images of all the relevant papyri. An examination of the texts available to me provides only one similar writing, by Christopher son of Demetrios in P.KRU 57.7. Christopher employed a bigraphic style (though his style is quite different from Aristophanes’): вІ«вІ“вІ—вІџ(вІ‘вІ‰вІџвІҐ) вІЎПЈвІ›вІ›вІ‡вІЃвІ›вІ“вІЏвІ— вІ™вІ› вІ-вІЈвІ“вІҐвІ§вІџвІ«вІџвІЈвІџвІҐ вІЎПЈвІ›вІ›вІ‡вІЏвІ™вІЏвІ§вІЈвІ“вІџвІҐ вІ›вІЈвІ™вІЎвІ™вІ“вІ—вІЏвІҐвІ§вІ‰ “Philotheos son of Daniel and Christopher son of Demetrios from Pmiles” (Christopher acted as both scribe and guarantor in the document). As Pmiles is located within the Coptite nome, north of Thebes, Christopher is not likely to have been a Theban scribe. 500. For their dates and on the possibility of dating them later, to 712, see Cromwell 2013b, 283–284 and the references therein. 501. The three officials are NДЃjid b. Muslim, КїAbd AllДЃh b. КїAbd al-RaḥmДЃn, and YaḥyДЃ b. HilДЃl. Of particular note for the above discussion on tax demands, КїAbd AllДЃh b. КїAbd alRaḥmДЃn (line 5: бј€ОІОґОµО»О»О± П…бј±бЅё(П‚) бј€ОІОґОµПЃО±[ОјО±ОЅ]) is perhaps to be identified with [вІЃвІѓвІ‡]вІ‰вІ—вІ—вІЃ вІЎПЈвІ‰вІ›вІЃвІѓвІ‡вІ‰вІЈвІЃвІ™вІЃвІ›, who issues the demand P.Mon.Apollo 28 and probably also P.Mon.Apollo 30, although the name is lost from the latter document. The chronology of these officials probably spans the second and third quarters of the eighth century, covering the end of the Umayyad and beginning of the Abassid caliphates. If this identification is correct, he may have been pagarch of the Hermopolite nome. NДЃjid was pagarch of the Heracleopolite nome and, subsequently, of the Fayum (sometime before 750), while YaḥyДЃ was pagarch of the Fayum in 750–760. Sijpesteijn 2013 largely focuses on the career of NДЃjid; for his relationship with YaḥyДЃ, see, in particular, Sijpesteijn 2013, 125. Gonis (2004a, 194–195) addresses why these three officials occur in the same text. On its Fayumic provenance, which is unsurprising in light of the officials named; see Poethke 1985, 13. 502. The entire document (P.Berlin P. 2966) can be viewed on the online Berliner Papyrusdatenbank.

Similar documents include P.Rain.Unterricht 92 and 93, images of which are included in the editio princeps, while P.Rain.Unterricht 93 (P.Vindob. G 28057) can also be viewed in the Australian National Library’s online catalog. 503. On the (Greek) training of scribes in the office of the pagarch YaḥyДЃ b. HilДЃl, particularly their use of formulae and orthographic proficiency, see Bucking 2007a, 238–240. 504. Gonis 2004b, 193. 505. Bell 1926, 265–266. On this style, Bell especially notes, “The demand-notes, which furnished the local officials with their authority for levying taxes, were obviously of this latter type.” Many more examples of this style from the seventh and eighth centuries can be cited, many of which bear closer overall resemblance to Aristophanes’ Greek script. The following list, not intended to be extensive and by no means exhaustive, includes a range of documents for which published or online images are available: CPR IX 67 + P.Vindob. B 18880 (eighth century; the images published in Gonis 2003 show remarkable similarities with the Greek text in P.CLT 3); SB III 7240 (17 October 697; see Bell 1926, pl. XLVI); SB VI 9576 (25 April 643; the early date of this document shows that the style of the late seventh or eighth centuries was a development from one that already existed in Egypt at the time of the conquest; similarities between this hand and Aristophanes’ was already noted in Cromwell 2010a, 229). 506. Sijpesteijn 2007c, 185. 507. Only the key features of the process of centralization are noted here. General overviews, with further bibliography, are available in Papaconstantinou 2010 and Sijpesteijn 2007a (444–451), 2007c (191–195), and especially 2013 (which significantly expands Sijpesteijn’s earlier studies). 508. According to the History of the Patriarchs, this was achieved under the governor КїAbd AllДЃh b. SaвЂd (645–656): “This man arrived, accompanied by many people; and, as he was a lover of money, he collected wealth for himself in Egypt; and he was the first who built the Divan at Misr, and commanded that all the taxes of the country should be regulated there” (translation of the Arabic from Evetts 1948, 501). 509. SB VI 9232 (= P.Mert. II 100), dated 669, is a requisitioning order for an Arab postal station (ПѓП„О¬ОІО»ОїОЅ) in the northeastern Fayum; see Bell 1951. 510. The term amir (бј€ОјО№ПЃбѕ¶) was introduced by the Arabs, while other terms were adapted, including, at the highest level, symboulos (ПѓПЌОјОІОїП…О»ОїП‚) for the governor of Egypt and protosymboulos (ПЂПЃП‰П„ОїПѓП…ОјОІОїПЌО»ОїП‚) for the caliph. Strategos (ПѓП„ПЃО±П„О®ОіОїП‚), which appears in Aristophanes’ tax receipts, is a local title with a financial function and is also adapted from an earlier term, with which it no longer retains any association. For this practice by the new rulers, see Sijpesteijn 2013, 69–70. 511. See chapter 4. 512. P.CLT 6 is part of this system; see chapter 4.1. The earliest evidence for the requisitioning of labor dates to the 660s/670s (under the caliphate of MuвЂДЃwiya) and comes from the Edfu (ApollГґnos Ano) archive of Flavius Papas, the head of the local administration (see Foss 2009). The collection’s 107 Greek texts (P.Apoll.) were published in 1953, but the Coptic texts in the archive—and this is a clear archive, with the texts stored in a single amphora—have only been published in summary (MacCoull 1988a). The edition of these texts, housed in the Institut franГ§ais d’archГ©ologie orientale (the IFAO) in Cairo, is now in progress under the direction of Alain Delattre (Brussels/Paris). Thirty years after this corpus, the evidence for corvГ©es increases dramatically in the Qurra archive from early eighth-century Aphrodito (Papaconstantinou 2010, 68). A later eighth-century papyrus, P.Vindob. G 14965 (= CPR IX 67) + 18880, contains a list of workmen from the Heracleopolite nome who were requisitioned for public works, whether maintenance of the irrigation system, building projects, or something else (Gonis 2003).

Page 259 →

Bibliography Abbott, N. 1938. The Kurrah Papyri from Aphrodito in the Oriental Institute. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alston, R. 2002. The City in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. London: Routledge. AmГ©lineau, E. 1893. La GГ©ographie de l’Égypte Г l’Époque Copte. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Antoniak, I. 2010. “New Ostraca from Thebes.” In Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, vol. 2, Nag Hammadi–Esna, ed. G. Gabra and H. N. Takla, 1–6. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. BГЎcs, T. A. 2000. “The So-Called Monastery of Cyriacus.” Egyptian Archaeology 17: 34–36. Badawy, A. 1978. Coptic Art and Archaeology: The Art of the Christian Egyptians from the Late Antique to the Middle Ages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bagnall, R. S. 1979. “Ostraca from the Yale Collection.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 16: 3–11. Bagnall, R. S. 2003. “Periodizing When You Don’t Have To: The Concept of Late Antiquity in Egypt.” In Gab es eine SpГ¤tantike?, ed. B. Sirks, 39–49. Frankfurt am Main: Tagung des Graduiertenkollegs fГјr Antike und EuropГ¤ische Rechtsgeschichte. Bagnall, R. S. 2009. Early Christian Books in Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bagnall, R. S. 2011. Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bagnall, R. S., and K. A. Worp. 2004. Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Bechtold, E. 2007. “Reinterpretation of Coptic Looms Based on Material from TT 65.” In Proceedings of the Fourth Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, 31 August–2 September 2006, Budapest, ed. K. Endreffy and A. GulyГЎs, 1–13. Budapest: NKTH. Page 260 →Beckh, T. 2016. “Monks, Magicians, Archaeologists: New Results on Coptic Settlement Development in Dra вЂAbu el-Naga North, Western Thebes.” In Coptic Society, Literature, and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times: Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22nd, 2012, ed. P. Buzi, A. Camplani, and F. Contardi, 739–748. Leuven: Peeters. Beckh, T., I. Eichner, and S. Hodak. 2011. “Briefe aus der koptischen Vergangenheit: Zur Identifikation der Klosteranlage Deir el-BachГ®t in Theben-West.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchГ¤ologischen Instituts Kairo 67: 15–30. Behlmer, H., and M. Underwood. 2010. “Coptic Textual Finds from the Macquarie University Excavations at Dra Abu al-Naga (TT 233).” In Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, vol. 2, Nag Hammadi–Esna, ed. G. Gabra and H. N. Takla, 7–19. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Bell, H. I. 1908. “The Aphrodito Papyri.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 28: 97–120. Bell, H. I. 1926. “Two Official Letters of the Arab Period.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12: 265–281, pl. XLVI. Bell, H. I. 1929. “The Administration of Egypt under the вЂUmayyad Khalifs.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift

28: 278–286. Bell, H. I. 1945. “The Arabic Bilingual Entagion.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 89 (3): 531–542. Bell, H. I. 1951. “A Requisitioning Order for Taxes in Kind.” Aegyptus 31 (2): 307–312. Berkes, L. 2013. “Dorfverwaltung und Dorfgemeinschaft in Г„gypten von Diokletian zu den Abbasiden.” PhD diss., University of Heidelberg. Bickel, S., and B. Mathieu. 1993. “L’écrivain Amenakht et son enseignement [avec 8 planches].” Bulletin de l’Institut franГ§ais d’archГ©ologie orientale 93: 31–51. Biedenkopf-Ziehner, A. 2001. Koptische Schenkungsurkunden aus der Thebais: Formeln und Topoi der Urkunden, Aussagen der Urkunden, Indices. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bierbrier, M. L. 2012. Who Was Who in Egyptology. 4th ed. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Blouin, K. 2011. “Frange and Moses to Matthaios (O. Col. inv. 100): Another Piece to the Frange Dossier.” Archiv fГјr Papyrusforschung 57 (1): 73–78. Boswell, J. 1988. The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Eastern Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. New York: Pantheon Books. Boud’hors. A. 1996. “ReГ§us d’impГґt coptes de DjГ©mГ©.” Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 18: 161–175. Boud’hors, A. 2004. Pages chrГ©tiennes d’Égypte: Les manuscrits des Coptes. Paris: BibliothГЁque nationale de France. Boud’hors, A. 2008a. “Copie et circulation des livres dans la rГ©gion thГ©baine (VIIe–VIIIe siГЁcles).” In “Et maintenant ce ne sont plus que des villagesВ .В .В .”: ThГЁbes et sa rГ©gion aux Г©poques hellГ©nistique, romaine et byzantine, ed. A. Delattre and P. Heilporn, 149–161. Brussels: Association Г©gyptologique Reine Elisabeth. Page 261 →Boud’hors, A. 2008b. “Du copte dans les archives d’ApollГґs.” In Les archives de Dioscore d’AphroditГ© cent ans aprГЁs leur dГ©couverte, ed. J.-L. Fournet, 67–76. Paris: De Boccard. Boud’hors, A. 2011. “PiГЁces supplГ©mentaires du dossier de FrangГ©.” Journal of Coptic Studies 13: 99–112. Boud’hors, A. 2016. “Apprendre Г lire et Г Г©crire: Deux documents coptes revisitГ©s.” In Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology, Warsaw, 29 July–3 August 2013, ed. T. Derda, A. ЕЃatjar, and J. Urbanik, 1027–1039. Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation. Boud’hors, A., and E. Garel. 2016. “Que reste-t-il de la bibliothГЁque du monastГЁre de SaintPhoibammon Г Deir el-Bahari?” In Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana: The WЕ‚odzimierz Godlewski Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. A. ЕЃatjar, A. ObЕ‚uski, and I. Zych, 47–60. Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw. Boud’hors, A., and C. Heurtel. 2010. Les ostraca coptes de la TT 29. 2 vols. Brussels: CReA-Patrimoine. Boud’hors, A., and C. Heurtel. 2015. Ostraca et papyrus coptes du topos de Saint-Marc Г thГЁbes. Cairo: Institut franГ§ais d’archГ©ologie orientale.

Boulard, L. 1912. “La vente dans les actes coptes.” In Г‰tudes d’histoire juridique offertes Г Paul FrГ©dГ©ric Girard (par ses Г©lГЁves), 1–94. Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner. Bowman, A. K., and G. Woolf, eds. 1994a. Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowman, A. K., and G. Woolf. 1994b. “Literacy and Power in the Ancient World.” In Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, ed. A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buchanan, E. 2015. “Debt in Late Antique Egypt, 400–700 CE: Approaches to a Time in Transition.” DPhil diss., University of Oxford. Bucking, S. 2007a. “On the Training of Documentary Scribes in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Egypt: A Contextualized Assessment of the Greek Evidence.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159: 229–247. Bucking, S. 2007b. “Scribes and Schoolmasters? On Contextualizing Coptic and Greek Ostraca Excavated at the Monastery of Epiphanius.” Journal of Coptic Studies 9: 21–37. Budge, E. A. W. 1920. By Nile and By Tigris: A Narrative of Journeys in Egypt and Mesopotamia on Behalf of the British Museum between the Years 1886 and 1913. 2 vols. London: J. Murray. Burchfield, R. 2014. “Networks of the Theban Desert: Social, Economic, and Religious Interactions in Late Byzantine and Early Islamic Thebes.” PhD diss., Macquarie University, Sydney. Burchfield, R. 2016. “вЂThe Man of Jeme’: Designations of Place and Witness Statements in Western Thebes.” In Coptic Society, Literature, and Religion from Late Antiquity to Page 262 →Modern Times: Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22nd, 2012, ed. P. Buzi, A. Camplani, and F. Contardi, 699–708. Leuven: Peeters. BГ¦k Simonsen, J. 1988. Studies in the Genesis and Early Development of the Caliphal Taxation System with special references to circumstances in the Arab Peninsula, Egypt and Palestine. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Calament, F. 2003. “RГЁglements de comptes Г DjГЄmé .В .В . D’aprГЁs les ostraca coptes du Louvre.” In Г‰tudes coptes VIII: DixiГЁme journГ©e d’études, Lille 14–16 juin 2001, ed.В C. Cannuyer, 37–57. Lille: Association francophone de coptologie. Calament, F. 2012. “Le programme d’édition des archives de Pesynthios: Focus sur les papyrus coptes du MusГ©e du Louvre.” In Actes du 26e CongrГЁs international de papyrologie GenГЁve, 16–21 aoГ»t 2010, ed. P. Schubert, 107–118. Geneva: Droz. Calderini, R. 1950. “Gli бјЂОіПЃО¬ОјОјО±П„ОїО№ nell’Egitto Greco-romano.” Aegyptus 30 (1): 14–41. Caligiuri, M. P., and L. A. Mohammad. 2012. Neuroscience of Handwriting: Applications for Forensic Document Examination. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Casson, L. 1938. “Tax-Collection Problems in Early Arab Egypt.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 69: 274–291. Castel, G. 1979. “Étude d’une momie copte.” In Hommages Г la MГ©moire de Serge Sauneron 1927–1976, vol. 2, Г‰gypte post-pharaonique, 121–143, pls. X–XVII. Cairo: Institut franГ§ais d’archГ©ologie orientale. Cavallo, G., and H. Maehler. 1987. Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period, A.D. 300–800. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies.

ДЊernГЅ, J. 1976. Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chaserant, F., F. Leyge, and D. Heckenbenner, eds. 2009. Une autre Г‰gypte: Collections coptes du MusГ©e du Louvre. Paris: Somogy. Choat, M. 2007. “The Archive of Apa Johannes: Notes on a Proposed New Edition.” In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrologists, Helsinki, 1–7 August, 2004, ed. J. FrГ¶sГ©n, T. Purola, and E. Salmenkivi, 175–183. Helsinki: Societas Scientarum Fennica. Choat, M., and J. Cromwell. 2016. “Thebes in Late Antiquity.” In Coptic Society, Literature, and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times: Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22nd, 2012, ed. P. Buzi, A. Camplani, and F. Contardi, 695–698. Leuven: Peeters. Ciasca, A. 1881. I papiri copti del Museo Borgiano della S.C. de propaganda fide, tradotti e commentari. Rome: Tipografia poliglotta della S. c. di propaganda fide. Clackson, S. J. 1995. “Four Coptic Papyri from the Patermouthis Archive in the British Library.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 32: 97–116. Clackson, S. J. 2004. “Museum Archaeology and Coptic Papyrology: The Bawit Papyri.” In Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August—2 September 2000, ed. M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet, 2 vols., 477–490. Leuven: Peeters. Page 263 →Clackson, S. J. 2007. “Coptic Oxyrhynchus.” In Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts, ed. A. K. Bowman, R. A. Coles, N. Gonis, and D. Obbink, 332–341. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Cribiore, R. 1996. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cribiore, R. 2007. “The Coptic School Exercises in the Collection of the Columbia University.” In Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Wien, 22.–28. Juli 2001, ed. B. Palme, 127–130. Vienna: Verlag der Г–sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Cromwell, J. 2007. “The Archival History of Coptic Documents from Jeme Held in the British Library.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2006: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium, University of Oxford 2006, ed. M. Cannata, 54–65. Oxford: Oxbow. Cromwell, J. 2010a. “Aristophanes son of Johannes: An Eighth-Century Bilingual Scribe? A Study of Graphic Bilingualism.” In The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the вЂAbbДЃsids, ed. A. Papaconstantinou, 221–232. Farnham: Ashgate. Cromwell, J. 2010b. “Palaeography, Scribal Practice, and Chronological Issues in Coptic Documentary Texts.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 46: 1–16. Cromwell, J. 2011. “A Potential Case of Sibling Scribes.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 22: 67–82. Cromwell, J. 2012a. “The Family of Germanos from Jeme: An 8th Century Coptic Family.” In Coptic Culture: Past, Present, and Future, ed. M. Ayad, 131–142. Stevenage: Coptic Orthodox Church Centre. Cromwell, J. 2012b. “Following in Father’s Footsteps: The Question of Father-Son Training in Eighth Century Thebes.” In Actes du 26e CongrГЁs international de papyrologie, GenГЁve, 16–21 aoГ»t 2010, ed. P. Schubert, 149–157. Geneva: Droz.

Cromwell, J. 2013a. “Coptic Documents in the Archive of Flavius Atias.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 184: 280–288. Cromwell, J. 2013b. “Keeping It in the Family: Property Concerns in 8th Century Thebes.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 72 (2): 213–232. Cromwell, J. 2014. “Managing a Year’s Taxes: Tax Demands and Tax Payments in 724 CE.” Archiv fГјr Papyrusforschung 60 (1): 229–239. Cromwell, J. 2014/15 “New Scribes in Old Documents.” Enchoria: Zeitschrift fГјr Demotistik und Koptologie 34: 49–65, pls. 7–9. Cromwell, J. 2016. “Coptic Documents in Two Copies: A Study of Corrections and Amendments.” In Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology, Warsaw, 29 July–3 August 2013, ed. T. Derda, A. ЕЃajtar, and J. Urbanik, 1055–1073. Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation. Cromwell, J. 2017. “New Texts from Early Islamic Egypt: A Bilingual Taxation Archive.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrology und Epigraphik 201: 232–252. Page 264 →Cromwell, J. Forthcoming. “вЂListen to My Mistreatment’: Support Networks for Widows and DivorcГ©es in the Coptic Record.” In Singles and the Single Life in the Roman and Later Roman World, ed. C. Laes and S. Huebner. Cromwell, J., and E. Grossman. 2010. “Condition(al)s of Repayment: P.CLT 10 Reconsidered.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 96: 149–160 + pl. III. Crum, W. E. 1902. Catalogue gГ©nГ©ral des antiquitГ©s Г©gyptiennes du MusГ©e du Caire, Nos. 8001–8741: Coptic Monuments. Cairo: Institut franГ§ais d’archГ©ologie orientale. Crum, W. E. 1932. Review of Ten Coptic Legal Texts, by A. A. Schiller. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18: 196–197. Crum, W. E. 1939. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. Daniel, R. W. 2008. “Palaeography and Gerontology: The Subscriptions of Hermas Son of Ptolemaios.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 167: 151–152. Daniel, R. W. 2010. Architectural Orientation in the Papyri. Paderborn: Ferdinand SchГ¶ningh. Dekker, R. 2010. “Encomium on Pesynthios of Coptos: The Recently Discovered Sahidic Version from Shaykh Abd al-Qurna.” In Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, vol. 2, Nag Hammadi–Esna, ed. G. Gabra and H. N. Takla, 21–32. Cairo: American University Press. Dekker, R. 2011. “Reconstructing and Re-editing the Archive of Bishop Pesynthios of Koptos/Keft (7th century).” In Current Research in Egyptology 2010: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium, Leiden University January 2010, ed. M. Horn, J. Kramer, D. Soliman, N. Staring, C. van den Hoven, and L. Weiss, 33–41. Oxford: Oxbow. Delattre, A. 2002. “Le reГ§u de taxe O.Brux. Inv. E. 375.” Chronique d’Égypte 77: 361–368. Delattre, A. 2005. “La formule Г©pistolaire copte В«c’est votre serviteur qui ose Г©crire Г son SeigneurВ».” Archiv fГјr Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 51: 105–111. Delattre, A. 2007a. “La rГ©utilisation des protocoles aux Г©poques byzantines et arabes.” In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1–7 August, 2004, ed. J. FrГ¶sГ©n, T. Purola, and E. Salmenkivi, 215–220. Helsinki: Societas Scientarum Fennica.

Delattre, A. 2007b. “Les В«lettres de protection coptesВ».” In Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Wien, 22.–28. Juli 2001, ed. B. Palme, 173–178. Vienna: Verlag der Г–sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Delattre, A. 2008. “Cinq entagia coptes.” Archiv fГјr Papyrusforschung 54 (1): 79–86. Delattre, A., and J.-L. Fournet. 2013. “FiscalitГ© et comptabilitГ© dans l’Égypte byzantine et arabe: ГЂ propos d’une publication rГ©cente d’ostraca du Petrie Museum.” Archiv fГјr Papyrusforschung 59 (1): 161–175. Delattre, A., and J.-L. Fournet. 2014. “Le dossier des reГ§us de taxe thГ©bains et la fiscalitГ© en Г‰gypte au dГ©but du VIIIe siГЁcle.” In Coptica Argentorantensia: ConfГ©rences et documents de la 3e universitГ© d’étГ© en papyrologie copte (Strasbourg, 18–25 juillet 2010), ed. A. Boud’hors, A. Delattre, C. Louis, and T. S. Richter, 209–239. Paris: De Boccard. Page 265 →Delattre, A., and N. Vanthiegheim. 2014. “Sept reГ§us de taxe thГ©bains du VIIIe siГЁcle.” Journal of Coptic Studies 16: 89–102. Demiri, L., and C. E. RГ¶mer, eds. 2009. Texts from the Early Islamic Period in Egypt: Muslims and Christians at Their First Encounter; Arabic Papyri from the Erzherzog Rainer Collection, Austrian National Library. Vienna: Phoibos. Dennett, D. C. 1950. Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Eichner, I., T. Beckh, and J. Sigl. 2009. “Das Kloster Deir el-Bachit in Theben-West: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven.” In Texte—Theben—Tonfragmente: Festschrift fГјr GГјnter Burkard, ed. D. Kessler, R. Schulz, M. Ullmann, A. Verbovsek, and S. Wimmer, 92–106. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Eichner, I., and U. Fauerbach. 2005. “Die spГ¤tantike/koptische Klosteranlage Deir el-Bachit in Dra вЂAbu el-Naga (OberГ¤gypten): Zweiter Vorbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchГ¤ologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 61: 139–152 + pls. 21–26. Erman, A., and F. Krebs. 1899. Aus den Papyrus der kГ¶niglichen Museen. Berlin: W. Spemann. Evetts, B., trans. 1948. History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, vol. 2, Peter I to Benjamin I (661). Paris: P. Fages. Eyre, C. J. 1979. “A вЂStrike’ Text from the Theban Necropolis.” In Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honour of H. W. Fairman, ed. J. Ruffle, G. A. Gaballa, and K. A. Kitchen, 80–91. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. FГ¶rster, H. 2000. “Corrigenda zu P.KRU.” GГ¶ttingen Miszellen 179: 107–112. FГ¶rster, H. 2002. WГ¶rterbuch der griechischen WГ¶rter in den koptischen dokumentarischen Texten. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Foss, C. 2009. “Egypt under MuвЂДЃwiya. Part I: Flavius Papas and Upper Egypt.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 72 (1): 1–24. Fournet, J.-L. 2008. “Archive ou archives de Dioscore? Les derniГЁres annГ©es des В«archives de DioscoreВ».” In Les archives de Dioscore d’AphroditГ© cent ans aprГЁs leur dГ©couverte, ed. J.-L. Fournet, 17–30. Paris: De Boccard. Fournet, J.-L. 2010. “Sur les premiers documents juridique coptes.” In Г‰tudes coptes XI: TreiziГЁme journГ©e d’études (Marseille, 7–9 juin 2007), ed. A. Boud’hors and C. Louis, 125–137. Paris: De Boccard.

Frantz-Murphy, G. 1999. “Land Tenure in Egypt in the First Five Centuries of Islamic Rule (Seventh–Twelfth Centuries AD).” In Agriculture in Egypt from Pharaonic to Modern Times, ed. A. Bowman and E. Rogan, 237–266. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fraser, P. M. 1991. “Arab Conquest of Egypt.” In The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. A. S. Atiya, 1:183–189. New York: MacMillan. Gabra, G. 2002. Coptic Monasteries: Egypt’s Monastic Art and Architecture. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Garel, E. 2015. “Les testaments des supГ©rieurs du monastГЁre de Saint-Phoibammon Г ThГЁbes (VIIГЁ siГЁcle).” PhD diss.,В Г‰cole pratique des hautes Г©tudes, Paris. Page 266 →Garel, E. 2016. “Les testaments des supГ©rieurs du monastГЁre de Staint-Phoibammon Г Deir el-Bahari: Documents inГ©dits.” In Coptic Society, Literature, and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times: Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22nd, 2012, ed. P. Buzi, A. Camplani, and F. Contardi, 719–722. Leuven: Peeters. Gascou, J. 1983. “De Byzance a l’Islam: Les impГґts en Egypte aprГЁs la conquГЄte arabe.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 26 (1): 97–109. Gascou, J. 2013. “Arabic Taxation in the Mid-Seventh-Century Greek Papyri.” In Constructing the Seventh Century, ed. C. Zuckerman, 673–677. Travaux et MГ©moires 17. Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance. Gascou, J., and K. A. Worp. 1982. “ProblГЁmes de documentation Apollinopolite.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 49: 83–95. Gilmore, G., and J. Ray. 2006. “A Fixed Point in Coptic Chronology: The Solar Eclipse of 10 March, 601.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 158: 190–192. Gizewski, C. 2013. “Bureaucracy.” Pt. 1. “General.” In Brill’s New Pauly, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Brill Online. Accessed 26 April 2016. http://referenceworks.brillonline. com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly /bureaucracy-e221200 Godlewski, W. 1986. Le monastГЁre de St. Phoibammon. Warsaw: PWN–Éditions scientifique de Pologne. Godlewski, W. 2005. “Excavating the Ancient Monastery at Naqlun.” In Christianity and Monasticism in the Fayoum Oasis: Essays from the 2004 International Symposium of the Saint Mark Foundation and the Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society in Honor of Martin Krause, ed. G. Gabra, 155–171. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Golvin, J.-C. 1983. Du ciel de ThГЁbes. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. Gonis, N. 1999. “Korr. Tyche 339: Abbreviating ОґО±ПЂО¬ОЅО·.” Tyche 14: 332. Gonis, N. 2000a. “Korr. Tyche 372, KSB I 263: An Old Misprint Carried Over.” Tyche 15: 202. Gonis, N. 2000b. “Two Poll-Tax Receipts from Early Islamic Egypt.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 131: 150–154. Gonis, N. 2003. “P. Vindob. G 14965 (= CPR IX 67) + 18880: Requisitioned Workers in Eighth-Century Egypt.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 145: 209–211. Gonis, N. 2004a. “Another Look at Some Officials in Early вЂAbbДЃsid Egypt.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 149: 189–195.

Gonis, N. 2004b. “Reconsidering Some Fiscal Documents from Early Islamic Egypt II.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 150: 187–193. Gonis, N. 2004c. “Tax Receipts on Coptic and Greek Ostraca Re-read.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 147: 157–163. Gonis, N. 2009. “Reconsidering Some Fiscal Documents from Early Islamic Egypt III.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 169: 197–208. Gonis, N., and F. Morelli. 2000. “A Requisition for the вЂCommander of the Faithful’: SPP VIII 1082 Revised.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 132: 193–195. Page 267 →Goodwin, C. W. 1859. “Curiosities of Law. 1. Conveyancing among the Copts of the Eighth Century.” Law Magazine and Law Review: Or, Quarterly Journal of Jurisprudence 6: 237–248. Goodwin, C. W. 1863. “Account of Three Coptic Papyri, and Other Manuscripts, Brought from the East by J. S. Stuart Glennie, Esq.” Archaeologia 39: 447–456. Goodwin, C. W. 1869. “Topographical Notes from Coptic Papyri.” Zeitschrift fГјr Г¤gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunden 7: 73–75. GГіrecki, T. 2007. “Sheikh Abd el-Gurna (Hermitage in Tomb 1152): Preliminary Report, 2005.” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 17 [=Reports 2005]: 263–272. Grohmann, A. 1952. From the World of Arabic Papyri. Cairo: al-Maaref Press. Hagedorn, D., and K. A. Worp. 2004. “Ostraka der Sammlung Kaufmann in Beuron.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 146: 159–164. Hasitzka, M. 2007. Namen in koptischen dokumentarischen Texten. https://www.onb.ac.at/files/kopt_namen.pdf Hasznos, A. 2013. Coptic Texts from the Monastery of Cyriacus (TT 65), with an Introduction by Tamas A. BГЎcs. Budapest: ELTE EГ¶tvГ¶s kiadГі. Hawting, G. R. 2000. The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate, AD 661–750. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Heurtel, C. 2003–2004. “Tissage et tissus funГ©raires.” Grafma Newsletter 9: 60–66. Heurtel, C. 2007. “Marc, le prГЄtre de Saint-Marc.” In Actes du huitiГЁme congrГЁs international d’études coptes (Paris, 28 juin–3 juillet 2004), ed. N. Bosson and A. Boud’hors, 2 vols., 727–750. Leuven: Peeters. Heurtel, C. 2008a. “Les prГ©dГ©cesseurs de FrangГ©: L’occupation de TT 29 au viie siГЁcle.” In Г‰tudes coptes X: DouziГЁme journГ©e d’études (Lyon, 19–21 mai 2005), ed. A. Boud’hors and C. Louis, 167–178. Paris: De Boccard. Heurtel, C. 2008b. “Une correspondance copte entre DjГ©mГ© et PГ©tГ©moute.” In La lettre d’archive: Communication administrative et personnelle dans l’AntiquitГ© proche-orientale et Г©gyptienne (Actes du colloque de l’universitГ© de Lyon, 2–9 juillet 2004), ed. L. Pantalacci, 87–108. Cairo: Institut franГ§ais d’archГ©ologie orientale. Heurtel, C. 2010. “Écrits et Г©criture de Marc.” In Г‰tudes coptes XI: TreiziГЁme journГ©e Г©tudes (Marseille, 7–9 juin 2007), ed. A. Boud’hors and C. Louis, 139–150. Paris: De Boccard. Heuser, G. 1929. Die Personennamen der Kopten. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Hintze, F. 1974. “Koptische Steuerquittungsostraka der Berliner Papyrus-Sammlung.” In Festschrift zum

150 jГ¤hrigen bestehen des Berliner Г¤gyptischen Museums, 271–281 + pls. 36–41. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. Hodak, S. 2016. “The Ostraca of Deir el-Bachit and the вЂAnatolios-Zacharias Archive.’” In Coptic Society, Literature, and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times: Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th–22nd, 2012, ed. P. Buzi, A. Camplani, and F. Contardi, 723–738. Leuven: Peeters. HГ¶lscher, U. 1931. “The Architectural Survey, 1929/30.” In H. H. Nelson and U. HГ¶lscher, Medinet Habu Reports, 49–69. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Page 268 →HГ¶lscher, U. 1934. The Excavation of Medinet Habu, vol. 1, General Plans and Views. Chicago: Oriental Institute. HГ¶lscher, U. 1954. The Excavation of Medinet Habu, vol. 5, Post-Ramessid Remains. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Horwitz, I. 1940. “The Structure of a Coptic Donation Contract.” PhD diss., University of Chicago. Husselman, E. M. 1931. “Some Coptic Documents Dealing with the Poll-Tax.” Aegyptus 31 (2): 332–338. Husselman, E. M. 1942. “The Collection of Papyri.” In Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection, ed. W. H. Worrell, 1–22. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Husson, G. 1983. OIKIA: Le vocabulaire de la maison privГ©e en Г‰gypte d’aprГЁs les papyrus grecs. Paris: Sorbonne. Institut du monde arabe. 2000. L’Art Copte en Г‰gypte: 2000 ans de christianisme; Exposition prГ©sentГ©e Г l’Institut du monde arabe, Paris du 15 mai au 3 septembre 2000. Paris: Gallimard. Janssen, J. J. 1987. “On Style in Egyptian Handwriting.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 73: 161–167. Joyal, M., I. McDougall, and J. C. Yardley. 2009. Greek and Roman Education: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge. Kahle, P. E. 1954. Bala’izah: Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt. London: Oxford University Press. Kahle, P. E. 1974. “Zu den koptischen Steuerquittungen.” In Festschrift zum 150jГ¤hrigen bestehen des Berliner Г¤gyptischen Museums, 283–285. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Keenan, J. 1973. “The Names Flavius and Aurelius as Status Designations in Later Roman Egypt.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 11: 33–63. Keenan, J. 1974. “The Names Flavius and Aurelius as Status Designations in Later Roman Egypt.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 13: 283–304. Keenan, J. 1983. “An Afterthought on the Names Flavius and Aurelius.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 53: 245–250. Kennedy, H. 2001. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. London: Routledge. Kennedy, H. 2004. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Khan, G. 2008. “Remarks on the Historical Background and Development of Early Arabic Documentary

Formulae.” In “Documentary Letters from the Middle East: The Evidence in Greek, Coptic, South Arabian, Pehlevi, and Arabic (1st–15th c CE),” ed. A. Kaplony and E. M. Grob, Asiatische Studien 62 (3): 885–906. Kordowska, D. 2008. “Conservation Work on Three Coptic Manuscripts from Sheikh Abd el-Gurna.” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 18: 311–315. Kotsifou, C. 2012. “Bookbinding and Manuscript Illumination in Late Antique and Early Page 269 →Medieval Monastic Circles in Egypt.” In Eastern Christians and Their Written Heritage: Manuscripts, Scribes, and Context, ed. J. P. Monferrer-Sala, H. Teule, and S. Torallas Tovar, 213–244. Leuven: Peeters. Krause, M. 1956. “Apa Abraham von Hermonthis: Ein oberГ¤gyptischer Bischof um 600.” PhD diss., Humboldt-UniversitГ¤t, Berlin. Krause, M. 1969. “Die Testamente der Г„bte des Phoibammon-Klosters in Theban.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchГ¤ologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 25: 57–67. Krause, M. 1971. “Zur Lokalisierung und Datierung koptischer DenkmГ¤ler: Das Tafelbild des Bischofs Abraham.” Zeitschrift fГјr Г¤gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunden 97: 106–111. Krause, M. 1981. “Zwei Phoibammon-KlГ¶ster in Theben-West.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchГ¤ologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 37: 261–266. Krause, M. 1991. “Archives.” In The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. A. S. Atiya, 1:226–228. New York: MacMillan. Legendre, M. 2013. “La Moyenne-Egypte du VIIe au IXe siГЁcle: Appart de l’archГ©ologie et de la papyrology Г l’étude d’une sociГ©tГ© en transition.” PhD diss., Leiden University—Sorbonne Paris IV. Legendre, M. 2014. “PermГ©abilitГ© linguistique et anthroponymique entre copte et arabe: L’exemple de comptes en caractГЁres coptes du Fayoum fatimide.” In Coptica Argentorantensia: ConfГ©rences et documents de la 3e universitГ© d’étГ© en papyrologie copte (Strasbourg, 18–25 juillet 2010), ed. A. Boud’hors, A. Delattre, C. Louis, and T. S. Richter, 325–440. Paris: De Boccard. Legrain, G. 1886. Collection H. Hoffmann: Catalogue des objets d’art antiques. Strasbourg: G. Fischbach. Lewis, N. 1983. Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Oxford: Clarendon. MacCoull, L. S. B. 1988a. “The Coptic Papyri from Apollonos Ano.” In Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology, ed. B. G. Mandilaras, 1:141–147. Athens: Greek Papyrological Society. MacCoull, L. S. B. 1988b. Dioscorus of Aphrodito: His Work and His World. Berkeley: University of California Press. MacCoull, L. S. B. 1995. “Further Notes on Interrelated Greek and Coptic Documents of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries.” Chronique d’Égypte 70: 341–353. MacCoull, L. S. B. 1997a. “Dated and Datable Coptic Documentary Hands before A.D. 700.” Le MusГ©on: Revue d’Études Orientales 110: 349–366. MacCoull, L. S. B. 1997b. “MS. B.L.Or. 6205: P. Lond. IV 1494 Revisited.” Aegyptus 77: 125–135. MacCoull, L. S. B. 2000. “Apa Abraham: Testament of Apa Abraham, Bishop of Hermonthis for the Monastery of St. Phoibammon near Thebes, Egypt.” In Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A

Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, ed. J. Thomas and A. C. Hero, 51–58. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Page 270 →MacCoull, L. S. B. 2002–2003. “CPR IV 34 = P.Rain.Unterricht 112 MPER XVIII 223 descr.: Aspects of the Training of a Bilingual Scribe.” Analecta Papyrologica 14–15: 187–195. MacCoull, L. S. B. 2007a. “More on Documentary Coptic at Aphrodito.” Chronique d’Égypte 82: 381–390. MacCoull, L. S. B. 2007b. “Why Do We Have Coptic Documentary Papyri before A.D. 641?” In Actes du HuitiГЁme CongrГЁs international d’études coptes (Paris, 28 Juin–3 Juillet 2004), ed. N. Bosson and A. Boud’hors, 751–757. Leuven: Peeters. MacCoull, L. S. B. 2009. Coptic Legal Documents: Law as Vernacular Text and Experience in Late Antique Egypt. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, in collaboration with Brepols. MacCoull, L. S. B. 2010. “A Date for P.KRU 105?” In Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Papyrology, ed. T. Gagos, 449–454. Ann Arbor: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library. MacCoull, L. S. B. 2013. “Niches in an Ecosystem: The Choice of Coptic for Legal Instruments in Late Antique Egypt.” Analecta Papyrologica 25: 257–276. Mikhail, M. S. A. 2014. From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt: Religion, Identity, and Politics after the Arab Conquest. London: I. B. Taurus. Morimoto, K. 1981. The Fiscal Administration of Egypt in the Early Islamic Period. Kyoto: Dohosha. Muhs, B. 2008. “Archival Archaeology of Early Ptolemaic Theban Papyri and Ostraca.” In « Et maintenant ce ne sont plus que des villagesВ .В .В . В» ThГЁbes et sa rГ©gion aux Г©poques hellГ©nistique, romaine et byzantine, ed. A. Delattre and P. Heilporn, 33–47. Brussels: Association Г©gyptologique Reine Elisabeth. MГјller, M. 2016. “Coptic Ostraca in the Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis.” In Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis: New Discoveries and Research, 2012–2014, ed. E. Pischikova, 279–310. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. O’Connell, E. R. 2006. “Ostraca from Western Thebes: Provenance and History of the Collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and at Columbia University.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 43: 113–137. O’Connell, E. R. 2007a. “Tombs for the Living: Monastic Reuse of Monumental Funerary Architecture in Late Antique Egypt.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley. O’Connell, E. R. 2007b. “Transforming Monumental Landscapes in Late Antique Egypt: Monastic Dwellings in Legal Documents from Western Thebes.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15 (2): 239–73. O’Connell, E. R. 2014. “Settlements and Cemeteries in Late Antique Egypt: An Introduction.” In Egypt in the First Millennium AD: Perspectives from New Fieldwork, ed. E. R. O’Connell, 1–20. Leuven: Peeters. Papaconstantinou, A. 2002a. “Notes sur les actes de donation d’enfant au monastГЁre thГ©bain de SaintPhoibammon.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 32: 83–105. Page 271 →Papaconstantinou, A. 2002b. “ООµОЇО± Оїбј°ОєОїОЅОїОјОЇО±В : Les actes thГ©bains de donation d’enfants ou la gestion monastique de la pГ©nurie.” MГ©langes Gilbert Dagron, Travaux et

MГ©moires du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance 14: 511–526. Papaconstantinou, A. 2008. “Dioscore et la question du bilinguisme dans l’Égypte du vie siГЁcle.” In Les archives de Dioscore d’AphroditГ© cent ans aprГЁs leur dГ©couverte, ed. J.-L. Fournet, 77–88. Paris: De Boccard. Papaconstantinou, A. 2009. “вЂWhat Remains Behind’: Hellenism and Romanitas in Christian Egypt after the Arab Conquest.” In From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, ed. H. M. Cotton, R. G. Hoyland, J. J. Price, and D. J. Wasserstein, 447–466. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Papaconstantinou, A. 2010. “Administering the Early Islamic Empire: Insights from the Papyri.” In Money, Power, and Politics in Early Islamic Syria: A Review of Current Debates, ed. J. Haldon, 57–74. Farnham: Ashgate. Parkinson, R. B. 2009. Reading Ancient Egyptian Poetry among other Histories. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Parsons, P. J. 1989. “The Palaeography of the Herculaneum Papyri.” Review of Libri Scritture Scribi a Ercolano: Presentazione delle avole illustrative e indici a cura di Mario Capasso e Tiziano Dorandi; Introduzione allo studio dei materiali greci, by G. Cavallo. Classical Review, n.s., 39 (2): 358–360. Pimpaud, A.-B., and G. Lecuyot. 2013. “Cartes pour l’étude de la rive gauche de ThГЁbes aux Г©poques romaines et byzantines.” Memnonia 24: pl. XXXII. Pintaudi, R., ed. 2008. Antinoupolis. Vol. 1, Scavi e materiale. Florence: Istituto papirological “G. Vitelli.” Pintaudi, R., ed. 2014. Antinoupolis. Vol. 2, Scavi e materiale. Florence: Istituto papirological “G. Vitelli.” Pintaudi, R., and P. J. Sijpesteijn. 1990. “Tre ostraca copti della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana.” Enchoria: Zeitschrift fГјr Demotistik und Koptologie 17: 97–100. Poethke, G. 1985. “Pagarchen im Papyrus Berolinensis 2966.” Archiv fГјr Papyrusforschung und Verwandte gebiete 31: 13–15. Polis, S. In press. “The Scribal Repertoire of Amennakhte Son of Ipuy: Describing Variation across Late Egyptian Registers.” In Scribal Repertoires in Egypt from the New Kingdom to the Early Islamic Period, ed. J. Cromwell and E. Grossman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poll, I. 1999. “Die ОґО№О¬ОіПЃО±П†ОїОЅ-Steuer im spГ¤tbyzantinischen und frГјharabischen Г„gypten.” Tyche 14: 237–274. Porten, B., ed. 1996. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Leiden: Brill. Prada, L., and J. Malek. 2012. “Hector Horeau: An Extraordinary Architect and Traveller.” Ancient Egypt: The History, People, and Culture of the Nile Valley 73: 33–43. Richter, T. S. 1998. “Zwei Urkunden des koptischen Notars David, des Sohnes des Psate.” Archiv fГјr Papyrusforschung und Verwandte gebiete 44: 69–85. Page 272 →Richter, T. S. 2005. “What’s in a Story? Cultural Narratology and Coptic Child Donation Documents.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 35: 237–264. Richter, T. S. 2008. Rechtssemantik und forensische Rhetorik: Untersuchungen zu Wortschatz, Stil und Grammatik der Sprache koptischer Rechtsurkunden. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Richter, T. S. 2010. “Language Choice in the Qurra Dossier.” In The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the вЂAbbДЃsids, ed. A. Papaconstantinou, 189–220. Farnham: Ashgate. Richter, T. S. Forthcoming. “The Pattern вІЎвІ‰ПҐвІҐвІ±вІ§вІ™ вЂthe One Who Hears’ in Coptic Documentary Texts.” In Festshcrift Shisha-Halevy, ed. S. AufrГЁre, N. Bosson, and A. Boud’hors. RГ¶mer, M. 2004/5. “StraГџen—Menschen—HГ¤user: Zur Topographie des koptischen Djeme.” Enchoria: Zeitschrift fГјr Demotistik und Koptologie 29: 79–105. Schaten, S. 1997. “Ein weiteres Familienarchiv aus Djeme: KRU 66 und KRU 76, die Testamente der Susanna.” In Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, ed. B. Kramer, W. Luppe, and H. Maehler, 902–913. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. Schiller, A. A. 1953. “A Family Archive from Jeme.” Studi in Onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz nel XLV Anno del Suo Insegnamento 4: 325–375. Schiller, A. A. 1971. Introduction to Koptische Rechtsurkunden des achten Jahrhunderts aus DjГЄme (Theben), by W. E. Crum and G. Steindorff. Reprint, Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Schmelz, G. 2002. Kirchliche AmtstrГ¤ger im spГ¤tantiken Г„gypten: Nach den Aussagen der griechischen und koptischen Papyri und Ostraka. Munich: K. G. Saur. Selander, A. 2015. “Travel in Coptic Documentary Texts.” In Documents and the History of the Early Islamic World, ed. A. T. Schubert and P. M. Sijpesteijn, 77–99. Leiden: Brill. Shaban, M. A. 1971. Islamic History, A.D. 600–750 (A.H. 132): A New Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sigl, J. 2007. “Pits with Crossbars: Investigations on Loom-Remains from Coptic Egypt.” In Proceedings of the Fourth Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, 31 August–2 September 2006, Budapest, ed. K. Endreffy and A. GulyГЎs, 357–372. Budapest: NKTH. Sigl, J. 2011. “Weaving Copts in Amarna: Further Studies on Coptic Loompits in the Northern Tombs of Tell el-Amarna.” Studien zur AltГ¤gyptischen Kultur 40: 357–386. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1984. “Two Coptic Ostraca from the Moen Collection.” Bulletin de la SociГ©tГ© d’ArchГ©ologie Copte 26: 95–97. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1986. “Some Coptic Receipts for Diagraphon.” Enchoria: Zeitschrift fГјr Demotistik und Koptologie 14: 111–115. Sijpesteijn, P. M. 2007a. “The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Beginning of Muslim Rule.” In Egypt and the Byzantine World, 300–700 AD, ed. R. S. Bagnall, 437–459. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 273 →Sijpesteijn, P. M. 2007b. “The Archival Mind in Early Islamic Egypt: Two Arabic Papyri.” In From al-Andalus to Khurasan: Documents from the Medieval Muslim World, ed. P. M. Sijpesteijn and L. Sundelin, 163–187. Leiden: Brill. Sijpesteijn, P. M. 2007c. “New Rule over Old Structures: Egypt after the Muslim Conquest.” In Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, from Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein, ed. H. Crawford, 183–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sijpesteijn, P. M. 2010. “Multilingual Archives and Documents in Post-Conquest Egypt.” In The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the вЂAbbДЃsids, ed. A. Papaconstantinou, 105–126. Farnham: Ashgate.

Sijpesteijn, P. M. 2012. “Seals and Papyri from Early Islamic Egypt.” In Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East: Developments in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period; Proceedings of an International Workshop at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo on December 2–3, 2009, ed. I. Regulski, K. Duistermaat, and P. Verkinderen, 163–174. Leuven: Peeters. Sijpesteijn, P. M. 2013. Shaping a Muslim State: The World of a Mid-Eighth-Century Egyptian Official. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skeat, T. C. 1982. “The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-Advantage of the Codex.” In Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 45: 169–175. Smith, M. 2004. “Budge, Sir Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis (1857–1934).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Accessed 26 April 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/32161 Spiegelberg, W. 1903. Review of Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum, and Others, by W. E. Crum. Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung 6 (2): 59–70. Steinwenter, A. 1920. Studien zu den koptischen Rechtsurkunden aus OberГ¤gypten. Leipzig: Verlag H. Haessel. Stern, L. 1884. “Zwei koptische Urkunden aus Theben auf einem Papyrus des Г¤gyptischen Museums zu Berlin.” Zeitschrift fГјr Г¤gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 22: 140–160. Stern, L. 1888. “Das Testament der Susanna nach einem koptischen Papyrus im Britischen Museum.” Zeitschrift fГјr Г¤gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 26: 128–134. Stewart, R. 1983. “Two Coptic-Greek Poll Tax Receipts from the Michigan Collection.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 52: 293–294. Stobart, H. 1855. Egyptian Antiquities Collected on a Voyage Made in Upper Egypt in the Years 1854 and 1855. Paris: Duprat. Till, W. C. 1947. “Die koptischen Steuerquittungsostraca der Wiener Papyrus-sammlung.” Orientalia 16: 525–543. Till, W. C. 1950. “Die koptische Stipulationsklausel.” Orientalia 19: 81–87. Till, W. C. 1953a. “Der griechisch-koptische Wiener Papyrus K 4912: Testament und LiefervertrГ¤ge.” Aegyptus 33: 193–208. Page 274 →Till, W. C. 1953b. “Koptische Parallelurkunden.” Studi in Onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz nel XLV Anno del Suo Insegnamento 4: 197–208. Till, W. C. 1954. Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen auf Grund der koptischen Urkunden. Vienna: Rudolf M. Rohrer. Till, W. C. 1955. “Zu den Coptic Ostraca from Medinet Habu.” Orientalia 24: 146–155. Till, W. C. 1958. “Die koptischen BГјrgschaftsurkunden.” Bulletin de la SociГ©tГ© d’archГ©ologie Copte 14: 165–226. Till, W. C. 1962. Datierung und Prosopographie der koptischen Urkunden aus Theben. Vienna: Hermann BГ¶hlaus Nachf. Till, W. C. 1964. Die koptischen Rechtsurkunden aus Theben. Vienna: Hermann BГ¶hlaus Nachf. Till, W. C. 1966. Koptische Grammatik (saГЇdischer Dialekt) mit Bibliographie, LesestГјcken und WГ¶rterverzeichnissen. 3rd ed. Leipzig: EnzyklopГ¤die.

Till, W. C., and A. Steinwenter. 1933. “Neue koptische Rechtsurkunden.” Aegyptus 13 (1): 305–322. Timm, S. 1984–2007. Das christlich-koptische Г„gypten in arabischer Zeit. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Vanderheyden, L. 2012. “Les lettres coptes des archives de Dioscore d’AphroditГ©.” In Actes du 26e CongrГЁs international de papyrologie, GenГЁve, 16–21 aoГ»t 2010, ed. P. Schubert, 793–799. Geneva: Droz. Vanderheyden, L. 2015. “Les lettres coptes des archives de Dioscore d’AphroditГЄ (VIe siГЁcle; Г‰gypte).” PhD diss., Г‰cole pratique des hautes Г©tudes, Paris. van der Spek, K. 2011. The Modern Neighbors of Tutankhamun: History, Life, and Work in the Villages of the Theban West Bank. Cairo: Cairo University Press. van der Vliet, J. 2002. “Pisenthios de Coptos (569–632): Moine, Г©vГЄque et saint; Autour d’une nouvelle Г©dition de ses archives.” In Autour de Coptos, ed. M.-F. Boussac, 61–72. Lyon: Topoi. van der Vliet, J. 2014. “Coptic Documentary Papyri after the Arab Conquest.” In “Papyrology AD 2013: 27th International Congress of Papyrology Keynote Papers,” ed. T. Derda, A. ЕЃajtar, and J. Urbanik, special issue, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 43: 187–208. Vandorpe, K. 1994. “Museum Archaeology, or How to Reconstruct Pathyris Archives.” In Acta Demotica: Acts of the Fifth International Conference for Demotists, Pisa, 4–8 September 1993 (= Egitto e vicino Oriente 17), ed. E. Bresciani, 289–300. Pisa: Giardini. Vandorpe, K. 2009. “Archives and Dossiers.” In Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. R. S. Bagnall, 216–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vandorpe, K., and S. Waebens. 2009. Reconstructing Pathyris’ Archives: A Multicultural Community in Hellenistic Egypt. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie and l’Union Academique Internationale. Varenbergh, J. 1949. “Ventes de Parts Divises ou Indivises d’Immeubles et d’Appartements dans les Actes Coptes.” Archives d’histoire du droit oriental 4: 163–86. Page 275 →Verhoogt, A. M. F. W. 1998. Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: The Doings and Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120–110 B.C.). Leiden: Brill. Verreth, H. 2009. The Provenance of Egyptian Documents from the 8th century BC till the 8th century AD. Leuven: Trismegistos Online Publications. Wassiliou, A. K., ed. 1999. Siegel und Papyri: Das Siegelwesen in Г„gypten von rГ¶mischer bis in frГјharabische Zeit. Vienna: OVG and E. Dworak. Weber, M. 1968. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Trans. G. Roth and C. Wittich. New York: Bedminster. Westerfeld, J. T. 2010. “Landscapes of Memory: Pharaonic Sacred Space in the Coptic Imagination.” PhD diss., University of Chicago. Wickham, C. 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilfong, T. G. 1989. “Western Thebes in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries: A Bibliographic Survey of Jeme and Its Surroundings.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 26: 89–147.

Wilfong, T. G. 1990. “The Archive of a Family of Moneylenders from JГЄme.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 27: 169–181. Wilfong, T. G. 1999. “Agriculture among the Christian Population in Early Islamic Egypt.” In Agriculture in Egypt from the Pharaonic to Modern Times, ed. A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan, 217–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilfong, T. G. 2002. Women of Jeme: Lives in a Coptic Town in Late Antique Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Wilfong, T. G. 2003a. “Two Coptic Tax Receipts from Jeme in the Kelsey Museum.” Bulletin of the University of Michigan Museums of Art and Archaeology 15: 88–91. Wilfong, T. G. 2003b. “Women’s Things and Men’s Things: Notes on Gender and Property at Jeme.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 40: 213–221. Wilfong, T. G. 2004. “New Texts in Familiar Hands: Unpublished Michigan Coptic Ostraca by Known Scribes.” In Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, ed. M. Immerseel and J. van der Vliet, 2 vols., 545–551. Leuven: Peeters. Winlock, H. E., and W. E. Crum. 1926. The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes. Part I: The Archaeological Material; Part II: The Literary Material. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Wipszycka, E. 2009. Moines et communautГ©s monastique en Г‰gypte (IVe–VIIIe siГЁcles). Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplements 11. Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation. Wipszycka, E. 2011. “Resources and Economic Activities of the Egyptian Monastic Communities (4th–8th centuries).” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 41: 159–263. Worp, K. A. 1984. “Studien zu spГ¤tgriechischen, koptischen und arabischen Papyri.” Bulletin de la SociГ©tГ© d’archГ©ologie Copte 26: 99–107. Worp, K. A. 1985. “P.Vindob. G 39743: Ein neuer Rashid-Papyrus.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 58: 83–85. Page 276 →Worp, K. A. 1986. “More Ostraka from the Heerlen Collection.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 66: 131–147. Worp, K. A. 1999. “Coptic Tax Receipts: An Inventory.” Tyche 14: 309–324. Worrell, W. H., and H. C. Youtie. 1932. Review of Ten Coptic Legal Texts, by A. Arthur Schiller. Journal of the American Oriental Society 52 (4): 377–380. Youtie, H. C. 1971. “ΒραδО-П‰П‚ ОіПЃО¬П†П‰ОЅ: Between Literacy and Illiteracy.”Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 12: 239–261. Youtie, H. C. 1975a. “вЂBecause They Do Not Know Letters.’” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 19: 101–108. Youtie, H. C. 1975b. “ὑπογραφεύς: The Social Impact of Illiteracy in Graeco-Roman Egypt.” Zeitschrift fГјr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 17: 201–221. Zuckermann, C. 1995. “The Hapless Recruit Psois and the Mighty Anchorite, Apa John.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 32: 183–194.

Page 277 →

Papyrological Index BKU I 48, 90 BKU III 339, 165 BKU III 340, 163, 165 BKU III 417, 163 BKU III 418, 163, 165 CPR II 123, 163 CPR IV 1, 163 CPR IV 3, 164, 165, 178, 179 CPR IV 4, 164, 165 CPR IV 5, 163, 165 CPR IV 20, 119 CPR IV 34, 177 CPR IV 51, 163 CPR IV 6, 164, 165, 179 CPR VIII 72, 164 CPR IX 67, 167, 168 CPR XIX 28, 93 CPR XXII 26, 98 O.Ashm. inv. 532, 109 O.BM EA 31805, 25 O.BM EA 44848, 26, 120–22, 168, 181 O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 303, 109 O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 521, 96 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 14/1, 115 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 76/1, 128 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 86/1, 103 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 4, 176

O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 5, 176 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 11, 176 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 12, 176 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 13, 176 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 14, 176 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 25, 176 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 27, 176 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 33, 176 O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 37, 176 O.Brux. inv. E 375, 31 O.Camb.UL inv. 138, 98 O.Col. inv. 154, 29, 107, 109 O.Col. inv. 160, 29, 107 O.Col. inv. 513, 21 O.Crum 107, 122 O.Crum 138, 90 O.Crum 147, 30, 64, 143, 145, 154 O.Crum 158, 176 O.Crum 169, 23 Page 278 →O.Crum 206, 90 O.Crum 303, 90 O.Crum 404, 17 O.Crum 407, 99 O.Crum 408, 99 O.Crum 409, 103 O.Crum 410, 103, 104 O.Crum 413, 92 O.Crum 414, 98 O.Crum 416, 95

O.Crum 417, 98 O.Crum 422, 29, 109 O.Crum 427, 102 O.Crum 440, 115 O.Crum 457, 60 O.Crum 458, 60 O.Crum 459, 60 O.Crum Ad. 46, 128 O.CrumST 38, 130, 151 O.CrumST 59, 31 O.CrumST 130, 129 O.CrumST 175, 17 O.CrumST 186, 19 O.CrumST 242, 19 O.CrumST 273, 20 O.CrumST 415a, 96, 108 O.CrumST 415b, 96 O.CrumST 439, 30 O.CrumST 444, 30, 115 O.CrumVC 6, 20, 184 O.CrumVC 38, 19 O.CrumVC 97b, 20 O.CrumVC 114, 20 O.Fitz. E.GA. 6377.1943, 25, 109, 111 O.Frange 39, 14 O.Frange 47, 14 O.Frange 98, 14 O.Frange 120, 14 O.Frange 142, 14

O.Frange 145, 14 O.Frange 201, 14 O.Frange 371, 14 O.Giss. inv. 551, 97 O.Hyvernat 17, 98, 102, 109, 182 O.Kaufmann inv. 105, 98 O.Kaufmann inv. 177, 98 O.Kelsey inv. 25262, 97 O.Kelsey inv. 25077, 109 O.Kelsey inv. 25114, 118 O.Lips.Copt. 43, 16, 17–18 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 6, 115 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 16, 122 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 21, 23, 115 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 24, 30, 115 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 28, 172 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 33, 95 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 55, 95 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 59, 95 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 80, 128 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 88, 128, 129–30, 151 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 89, 129 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 90, 129 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 91, 129 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 92, 129 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 93, 129 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 94, 129 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 95, 129 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 122, 122

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 143, 130 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 163, 19 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 219, 103, 104 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 220, 103, 104 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 230, 116 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 231, 96, 110 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 234, 117 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 238, 172 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 239, 29, 109 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 248, 102 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 249, 102 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 250, 102 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 251, 102 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 252, 102 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 270, 108 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 271, 97 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 272, 106, 107 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 273, 106, 107, 115 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 274, 105 Page 279 →O.Medin.HabuCopt. 276, 106, 107, 113 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 277, 105, 107 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 290, 97 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 294, 92 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 300, 97 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 301, 97 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 316, 103 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 317, 95 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 321, 172 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 322, 172

O.Medin.HabuCopt. 323, 95 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 335, 103 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 336, 103 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 337, 103 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 338, 103 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 339, 103 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 343, 95 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 346, 94, 172 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 348, 172 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 349, 97 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 360, 104, 115 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 372, 97 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 379, 172 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 382, 104 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 384, 97 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 385, 97 O.Medin.HabuCopt. 386, 104 O.Moen. inv. 33, 113 O.Paris Cabinet des MГ©dailles 1894, 187 O.Paris Cabinet des MГ©dailles 1895, 187 O.Petr.Mus. 574, 97, 98 O.Torin. inv. 1448, 98 O.Vind.Copt. 41, 19 O.Vind.Copt. 42, 130 O.Vind.Copt. 53, 122 O.Vind.Copt. 56, 120 O.Vind.Copt. 64, 120 O.Vind.Copt. 72, 95 O.Vind.Copt. 81, 95

O.Vind.Copt. 87, 110 O.Vind.Copt. 88, 110 O.Vind.Copt. 89, 116, 118 O.Vind.Copt. 90, 96, 111 O.Vind.Copt. 91, 172 O.Vind.Copt. 94, 97 O.Vind.Copt. 95, 52, 97 O.Vind.Copt. 98, 103, 104 O.Vind.Copt. 107, 85 O.Vind.Copt. 118, 92, 122 O.Vind.Copt. 324, 20 O.Vind.Copt. 449, 115 P.Bal. 130 Appendix A, 28, 30, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 64, 80, 93–94, 98, 99, 105, 141, 147, 163–67, 171, 172, 178–81 P.Bal. 130 Appendix B, 28, 30, 41, 105, 178–180 P.Bal. 402, 163 P.BawitClackson 1, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 3, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 4, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 5, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 6, 13 P.BawitClackson 7, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 8, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 9, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 10, 13 P.BawitClackson 11, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 12, 13 P.BawitClackson 14, 13, 99 P.BawitClackson 22, 13 P.BawitClackson 25, 13, 99

P.Berol. inv. 11349, 11 P.Cair.Cat.Copt. 8266, 103 P.Cair.Masp. II 67176r, 11 P.Cair.Masp. II 67353r, 11 P.CLT 1, 6, 13, 41, 42, 61, 62, 147, 158, 170, 172, 184 P.CLT 2, 6, 42, 61, 147 P.CLT 3, 6, 30, 42, 43, 61, 62, 70, 79, 80, 89, 118–19, 146–147, 151, 167, 168, 180, 181 P.CLT 4, 31, 42, 61, 147 P.CLT 5, 6, 42, 61, 147 P.CLT 6, 14, 31–32, 35–37, 41, 81, 89, 90–91, 92, 99, 119, 168, 179, 180 Page 280 →P.CLT 7, 32 P.CLT 8, 158 P.CLT 10, 128 P.HermitageCopt. 20, 173, 174 P.HermitageCopt. 33, 173, 174 P.KRU 1, 38, 62, 85, 135–36, 152, 154, 155 P.KRU 2, 51, 55, 62, 85, 130, 131, 135, 152, 154, 155 P.KRU 3, 62, 130, 131, 137 P.KRU 4, 38, 55, 62, 85, 135, 152, 154, 155 P.KRU 5, 36, 55, 62, 135, 154, 155, 184, 185 P.KRU 6, 62, 129, 135, 154, 160, 190 P.KRU 7, 43, 44, 48 P.KRU 8, 23, 32, 33, 35, 36–37, 44, 46, 48, 54, 68, 76, 77, 80, 87, 141, 142, 153 P.KRU 9, 158 P.KRU 10, 7, 26, 32, 33, 37, 42, 43, 52–54, 59, 64, 70, 74, 80, 85, 111, 131, 143–44, 151, 152, 174, 182, 183, 190 P.KRU 11, 14, 32, 37, 42, 43, 44, 46, 54, 59, 63, 70, 74, 78, 81, 85, 88, 153, 154, 156–57, 158, 174, 182, 183, 184, 189 P.KRU 12, 43, 48, 55, 62, 82, 135, 148, 152, 154 P.KRU 13, 43, 48, 49, 55, 62, 82, 135, 148, 152, 154, 159

P.KRU 14, 8, 32, 35, 37, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 54, 60, 62, 70, 74, 77, 78, 81, 83, 86, 87, 130, 135, 158, 174, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189 P.KRU 15, 8, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 54, 62, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 129, 135, 154, 158, 174, 183, 185, 189 P.KRU 16, 130, 154 P.KRU 17, 32, 35, 37, 38, 44, 49, 50–52, 70, 83, 87, 130, 131, 174 P.KRU 18, 158 P.KRU 19, 184, 185 P.KRU 20, 43, 64, 85, 143, 145, 155 P.KRU 21, 43, 51, 52, 53, 64, 143, 145, 155, 159 P.KRU 22, 33, 85, 137, 184, 185 P.KRU 23, 122 P.KRU 24, 36–37, 55, 63, 87, 137, 155, 184, 185 P.KRU 25, 32, 36, 37, 42, 46–48, 63, 76, 85, 127, 137, 138, 154, 157, 184 P.KRU 26, 34, 35, 37, 38, 63, 76, 77, 87, 126, 137, 140, 153, 154, 184 P.KRU 27, 14, 32, 43, 49, 50, 51, 70, 74, 75, 83, 128, 129, 154, 174, 182 P.KRU 28, 31, 63, 137, 183, 172 P.KRU 29, 85, 184, 185 P.KRU 30, 35, 36, 85 P.KRU 33, 27, 128 P.KRU 34, 128 P.KRU 35, 64, 111, 122, 137, 152, 159 P.KRU 36, 19, 27, 53, 64, 137, 152 P.KRU 37, 53, 64, 152 P.KRU 38, 27, 152 P.KRU 39, 27, 28, 30, 32, 38, 42, 46, 54, 64, 70, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87, 127, 131, 143, 145, 146, 154, 159, 174 P.KRU 40, 27, 30, 32, 38, 42, 46, 54, 64, 76, 77, 81, 127, 131, 143, 145, 146, 154 P.KRU 41, 8, 27, 28, 32, 33, 36, 38, 42, 43, 55, 70, 72, 75, 78, 81, 85, 133–35, 140, 174, 182, 185, 189 P.KRU 42, 27, 48, 76, 159, 172 P.KRU 43, 27–28, 34, 38, 42, 43, 70, 72, 73, 81, 85, 126, 127, 131–33, 145, 184, 185, 190

P.KRU 44, 27, 137, 170 P.KRU 45, 27, 36, 37, 42, 44, 48, 63, 92, 137, 138, 139, 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 184, 190 P.KRU 46, 36, 37, 42, 44, 48, 63, 92, 137, 139, 154, 157, 159, 184 P.KRU 47, 32, 36, 38, 46–48, 59, 60, 63, 76, 77, 85, 137, 138, 139, 154, 157, 174, 182, 184 P.KRU 48, 32, 36, 38, 48–50, 51, 63, 76, 78, 83, 87, 137, 139–40, 154, 174, 18 P.KRU 50, 27, 31, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 48, 51, 63, 92, 112, 137, 139, 183, 190 P.KRU 51, 43, 53, 112, 159 P.KRU 52, 32, 43, 44, 48, 60, 64, 77, 78, 83, 141–42, 153 Page 281 →P.KRU 53, 28–29, 34, 38, 64, 65, 77, 141 P.KRU 54, 55, 63, 87, 153 P.KRU 56, 55, 63, 137, 139 P.KRU 57, 166 P.KRU 58, 32, 45, 46, 54–56, 64, 70, 91, 143, 146, 182 P.KRU 59, 22 P.KRU 60, 134 P.KRU 61, 142 P.KRU 62, 65, 141, 142, 162 P.KRU 63, 65 P.KRU 64, 31 P.KRU 65, 12, 16, 115 P.KRU 66, 54, 64, 143, 145, 146, 155 P.KRU 68, 64 P.KRU 70, 18, 31, 64, 130, 143, 180, 190 P.KRU 71, 23, 29, 45, 54, 55, 65, 92, 141 P.KRU 72, 62, 136 P.KRU 76, 54, 64, 143, 146, 151, 155 P.KRU 77, 12, 190 P.KRU 78, 79 P.KRU 79, 18, 78, 79

P.KRU 80, 79, 85 P.KRU 81, 31, 78, 79, 80 P.KRU 82, 79, 80 P.KRU 83, 18, 79, 87, 160 P.KRU 84, 31, 79, 80, 85 P.KRU 85, 78, 79 P.KRU 86, 79, 80 P.KRU 87, 7, 32, 35, 37, 44, 46, 48, 49, 56, 68, 72, 76, 78, 80, 87, 88, 146, 148, 149, 150, 184, 185 P.KRU 88, 43, 79, 149, 150, 160 P.KRU 89, 60, 79 P.KRU 90, 18, 79, 149, 184, 185 P.KRU 91, 6, 9, 79, 80 P.KRU 93, 160 P.KRU 94, 78, 149, 150 P.KRU 95, 32, 46, 61, 70, 79, 85, 174, 182, 184, 185 P.KRU 95+101, 78, 146, 148, 149 P.KRU 96, 60, 85, 150 P.KRU 98, 78, 149, 150, 184, 185 P.KRU 99, 78 P.KRU 100, 60, 84, 150 P.KRU 101, 46, 79 P.KRU 102, 149, 150, 184, 185 P.KRU 103, 29, 46, 78, 146, 148, 149 P.KRU 105, 12, 16, 17, 137 P.KRU 106, 6, 42, 43, 48, 53, 55, 61, 82, 148, 149, 184 P.KRU 111, 85, 155 P.KRU 112, 18 P.KRU 115, 64, 143, 146, 155 P.KRU 116, 28–29, 36, 37, 65, 141, 148

P.Laur. V 194, 173, 174 P.Lond. I 77, 12, 16 P.Lond. IV 1357, 123 P.Lond. IV 1359, 123 P.Lond. IV 1365, 123 P.Lond. IV 1370, 123 P.Lond. IV 1373, 123 P.Lond. IV 1380, 123 P.Lond. IV 1384, 119 P.Lond. IV 1397, 123 P.Lond. IV 1398, 123 P.Lond. IV 1412, 94 P.Lond. IV 1419, 93, 94 P.Lond. IV 1454, 173 P.Lond. IV 1455, 173 P.Lond. IV 1494, 91, 173, 174 P.Lond. IV 1497, 173 P.Lond. IV 1499, 173 P.Lond. IV 1504, 173 P.Lond. IV 1508, 91 P.Lond. IV 1509, 91, 173 P.Lond. IV 1511, 173 P.Lond. IV 1515, 173 P.Lond. IV 1518, 49, 118, 173, 174, 175 P.Lond. IV 1519, 173 P.Lond. IV 1521, 118–19, 173, 174 P.Lond. IV 1542, 49 P.Lond. IV 1544, 173 P.Lond. IV 1549, 173

P.Lond. IV 1565, 173, 174 P.Lond. IV 1570, 94 P.Lond. IV 1587, 38 P.Lond. IV 1591, 173, 174 P.Lond. IV 1595, 38, 173 P.Lond. IV 1596, 173, 174 Page 282 →P.Lond. IV 1599, 38, 173 P.Lond. IV 1610, 173, 174 P.Lond. IV 1611, 38, 173 P.Lond. IV 1633, 119, 173 P.Lond. V 1709, 11 P.Lond. V 1753, 189 P.Lond.Copt. I 444/1, 29, 42, 128 P.Lond.Copt. I 444/2, 94 P.Lond.Copt. I 1079/1, 92 P.Mich.Copt. 14, 190 P.Mon.Apollo 28, 163, 165 P.Mon.Apollo 29, 165 P.Mon.Apollo 30, 163, 165, 166 P.Mon.Apollo 50, 121 P.Mon.Epiph. 163, 16, 17 P.Mon.Epiph. 182, 162 P.Mon.Epiph. 269, 162 P.Mon.Epiph. 311, 162 P.Mon.Epiph. 352, 128 P.Mon.Epiph. 397, 19 P.Mon.Epiph. 435, 162 P.Mon.Epiph. 458, 17 P.Mon.Epiph. 496, 17

P.Mon.Epiph. 531, 17 P.Oxy. IV 724, 187 P.Rain.Unterricht 92, 167 P.Rain.Unterricht 93, 167 P.Rain.Unterricht 112, 177, 178 P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 174, 115 P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 223, , 177 P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 231, , 115 P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 237, , 115 P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 282, , 115 P.Ryl.Copt. 117, 163, 165 P.Ryl.Copt. 118, 163, 165, 178 P.Ryl.Copt. 119, 164 P.Ryl.Copt. 176, 19 P.Ryl.Copt. 199, 163 P.Ryl.Copt. 277, 118 P.Ryl.Copt. 282, 190 P.Ryl.Copt. 319, 124 P.Ryl.Copt. 378, 163, 165 P.Schutzbriefe 5, 120 P.Schutzbriefe 9, 122, 181 P.Schutzbriefe 10, 120–22, 168, 181 P.Schutzbriefe 22, 122, 181 P.Schutzbriefe 23, 120–22, 168, 181 P.Schutzbriefe 27, 26, 53, 95, 120–22, 168, 181 P.Schutzbriefe 28, 26, 53, 120–22, 168, 181 P.Schutzbriefe 29, 122 P.Schutzbriefe 30, 122, 181 P.Schutzbriefe 43, 122

P.Schutzbriefe 54, 181 P.Schutzbriefe 60, 121, 122 P.Schutzbriefe 61, 121 P.Schutzbriefe 62, 121 P.Schutzbriefe 63, 121 P.Schutzbriefe 64, 121 P.Schutzbriefe 61, 129 P.Schutzbriefe 76, 122 PSI inv. 43, 103 PSI inv. 68, 117 P.Stras.Copt. 29, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 30, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 31, 171 P.Stras.Copt. 32, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 33, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 34, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 35, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 38, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 39, 112, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 40, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 41, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 42, 112, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 43, 171 P.Stras.Copt. 44, 171 P.Stras.Copt. 47, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 48, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 49, 171 P.Stras.Copt. 50, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 51, 172

P.Stras.Copt. 52, 172 Page 283 →P.Stras.Copt. 53, 171 P.Stras.Copt. 54, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 55, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 56, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 58, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 59, 171 P.Stras.Copt. 60, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 61, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 62, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 63, 172 P.Stras.Copt. 64, 171 P.Stras.Copt. 66, 172 P.Tebt. I 52, 60 SB I 4139, 190 SB I 5589, 16 SB I 5608, 17 SB I 5611, 18 SB III 7240, 61, 167, 172, 175, 177 SB III 7241, 124 SB VI 9144, 189 SB VI 9232, 168 SB VI 9576, 167, 169 SB XIV 11373, 11 SB XVIII 13170, 189 SB XVIII 13247, 163, 166 SB XVIII 13870, 163 SB XVIII 14037, 98, 102 SB XXVI 16797, 93

SB Kopt. I 239, 112 SB Kopt. I 242, 81, 170 SB Kopt. I 254, 105 SB Kopt. I 258, 172 SB Kopt. I 261, 103, 117 SB Kopt. I 262, 107 SB Kopt. I 263, 107, 118 SB Kopt. I 264, 118 SB Kopt. I 265, 107 SB Kopt. I 268, 97 SB Kopt. II 958, 98 SB Kopt. II 960, 95 SB Kopt. II 966, 26 SB Kopt. II 967, 117 SB Kopt. II 968, 95 SB Kopt. II 969, 26 SB Kopt. II 970, 26 SB Kopt. II 971, 26 SB Kopt. II 974, 95 SB Kopt. II 986, 26 SB Kopt. II 994, 26 SB Kopt. II 999, 26 SB Kopt. II 1000, 98, 112 SB Kopt. II 1001, 23 SB Kopt. II 1002, 26 SB Kopt. II 1005, 96 SB Kopt. II 1006, 95 SB Kopt. II 1008, 97 SB Kopt. II 1009, 103

SB Kopt. II 1012, 103, 104 SB Kopt. II 1013, 103 SB Kopt. II 1019, 104 SB Kopt. II 1022, 96 SB Kopt. II 1238, 7, 12 SB Kopt. III 1293, 12 SB Kopt. III 1394, 12 SB Kopt. III 1395, 12 SB Kopt. III 1421, 102 SB Kopt. III 1422, 172 SB Kopt. III 1423, 172 SB Kopt. III 1425, 172 SB Kopt. III 1442, 115 SB Kopt. III 1666, 12 SB Kopt. IV 1781, 165, 181 SB Kopt. IV 1782, 164, 165, 181 SB Kopt. IV 1783, 165, 179 SB Kopt. IV 1784, 163, 165 SB Kopt. IV 1785, 164, 165, 179 SB Kopt. IV 1806, 177, 178 Stud.Pal. VIII 1195, 163, 179 Stud.Pal. VIII 1200, 163, 179 Stud.Pal. X 197, 163

Page 284 →Page 285 →

General Index Aaron son of Shenoute, 62–63, 135–37, 152, 154, 184 вЂAbd al-AzД«z b. MarwДЃn, 13, 168, 170 вЂAbd AllДЃh b. вЂAbd al-Malik, 14, 123, 168, 173 вЂAbd AllДЃh b. Abd al-RaḥmДЃn, 166 вЂAbd AllДЃh b. SaвЂd, 168, 170 Abessa daughter of Abigaia, 157–58 family of, 63–64, 137–40 and Takoum, 36, 51, 156 Akoris, 164 Amanuensis, 31, 32–36, 76, 87, 90 Amarna, 129 amir, 38, 44, 48, 62, 79, 119, 138, 141–42, 144, 146–147, 151, 168, 181, 189 See also Pagarch Amr b. al-вЂДЂб№Ј, 92 Amun-Re, 132 Antinoite nome, 119 Antinoopolis, 7, 144 Apa Abraham, Bishop, 5–6, 7, 60 Apa Jeremias, monastery (Saqqara), 119 Apa Patermoute, topos, 137, 143, 146 Apa Paul, monastery, 5, 6, 7, 13, 30, 42, 61, 119, 129, 146, 167, 170, 180, 184 Apa Phoibammon, monastery, 5–6, 7, 18, 49, 56, 60–61, 90, 146, 148–51, 160, 176 Apa Pisenthios, monastery, 150 Apa Psate, topos, 136–37 Apa Victor, topos, 136–37 Aphrodito, 11, 14, 49, 91, 118, 119, 123–24, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175 Arabization, 8, 169, 182, 191

Arbitration, 138, 142, 144 Architecture, domestic, 126–27 Archives, 117, 118, 135 Bilingual, 12 Monastic, 61 Private, 62, 65 Arsinoite nome, 182 See also Fayum Aswan, 12 Atias son of Goedos, 14, 164, 166, 167, 170, 172, 179 Basilaios, Pagarch, 123 Bigraphism. See Paleography Bilingualism, 11, 101, 169, 177, 178 Bismillah, 164 Book production, 151 Budge, E. A. W, 57, 63, 66 Camels, 128 Canons of Pseudo-Basil, 10 Centralization, 168–69, 176 Child donation texts, 60, 78, 79, 148–51, 175, 185 Code mixing, 183 Communal agreement, 37 Conquest, Egypt, 7–8 Conscription, 14 CorvГ©e (see also Naval duty), 168 Courtyards, 127–28, 132–33 Page 286 →Cyriacus son of Petros, scribe, 26, 27, 31, 36, 92, 95, 98, 103, 171–72, 177, 183, 185 Cyriacus, monastery, 129 Damascus, 168

Daniel son of Pachom, 28, 30, 36, 44–45, 64–65, 93, 141–43, 152, 178 David son of Psate, scribe, 15, 82, 148–50, 154–55, 175, 183, 184, 185 Deir el-Bachit. See Apa Paul, monastery Deir el-Bahri. See Apa Phoibammon, monastery Deir el-Bala’izah, 94, 165 Deir el-Medina, 147 Dioiketes, 43, 52–53, 55, 81, 82, 85, 92, 141, 180 Dioscorus son of Apollo, 11 Diwan, 168, 169 Document production, 74 Donkeys, 128 Dra Abu el-Naga. See Apa Paul, monastery Dual names, 136, 137 Dux, 144, 190 Edfu, 168, 170 Edict on Maximum Prices, 151, 187 Elizabeth daughter of Epiphanius, 63–64 Encomium on Pesyntius, 10 Entagia, 89, 105 Epiphanius, monastery, 5, 162 Ermont, 6, 48, 150, 160, 177 Fayum, 7, 30, 93, 94, 119, 147, 166, 168, 182 Flavius, use of, 162, 189–90 Frange, 14, 15, 21, 129, 176 Fugitives, 118, 123, 173, 175 Fustat, 168 Germanos son of Susanna, family of, 52–54, 64, 126–27, 143–46, 152 Gerontology, 45–46, 70–75, 79 Grammateus, 16–18

Griffith Institute, Oxford, 61 Hellenicism, 160 Heracleopolis, 169 Heracleopolite nome, 93 Hermopolis, 11, 14, 165, 170, 178 Hermopolite nome, 123–24, 163, 166, 172, 175 Hijaz, 168 Hishām, 182 History of the Patriarchs, 168 Holy Church of Djeme, 4 Holy Mary, church, 149 Islamization, 169, 182, 191 Jerusalem, 168 Johannes son of Lazarus, scribe, 13, 15, 27, 41, 53, 94, 95, 102–3, 105–7, 122, 145, 152, 155, 158, 170, 171, 175 Kellis, 11 Koloje daughter of Hllo, moneylender, 99 Kom Ombo, 99 Language choice, 36 Lashane, 52, 56, 82, 92, 111, 180, 181 Library, 60 Literacy, 81, 83 Logographos, 18 Looms, 128–29 Migdol, Medinet Habu, 135 Mu’āwiya, 168 Museum archaeology, 58 Nājid b. Muslim, 166 Name lists, 115–16 Naval duty, 90, 91, 173

Nomikos, 18–19, 173 Notaries, 88, 181 Notarios, 19 Oxyrhynchus, 11 Pagarch, 48, 179, 180 See also amir Paleography, 25, 46–52, 68–69, 71, 76, 78, 86, 117, 161, 164, 166, 167, 184, 185 Bigraphism, 88, 160, 166, 172, 175, 182, 185, 189 Pisenthios, Bishop of Coptos, 15 Pisenthios, monastery, 19 Population, Djeme, 3 Postal service, 168 Page 287 →Pragmateutes, 113–14, 117 Protosymboulos, 168 Provenance, 59, 65, 116 Psate son of Pisrael, scribe, 13, 15, 27, 38, 41, 92, 94, 95, 102–5, 122, 152, 170, 171, 172, 175 Qurra b. Е harik, 14, 123, 168, 173 Ramesseum, 5 RaЕЎid b. бёЄalД«d, 163, 166 Romoou, 7, 160 Safe conduct passes, 37, 164, 168, 181 Sahl b. вЂAbd AllДЃh, 48, 53, 89, 119, 147, 172, 180, 190 Schools, 186 School exercises, 177, 183 Scribes Cost of services, 151, 155, 187 Networks, 155 Scribal practice, 160, 166, 173, 182 Training, 163, 167, 173, 176, 177, 185, 187

Seals, 164 Secretaries, 60 Sigellia, 118, 119 Signatures, 23–25, 46, 76–80 St. Mark, topos, 10 Strategos, 35, 100, 101, 107–8, 114, 116, 168, 189 Symbolaiographos, 173 Symboulos, 168 Takoum daughter of Abigaia. See Abessa daughter of Abigaia Tale of Sinuhe, 67 Tax Administration, 30, 31, 36 Arrears, 123 Assessment, 99 Collection, 26, 115, 116 Demands, 37, 163, 164, 165, 178, 179, 182 Expenses tax, 41, 93, 96–97 Installments, 95–96 Land tax, 90, 103 Poll tax, 8–9, 13, 41, 90, 92, 168, chapter 4 Receipts, 37, 41, 77, 100–107, 170 Teachers, 183 Textile production, 129 Theodore, scribe, Aphrodito, 173–75, 176 This, 12 Travel, 30, 119–22 See also Safe conduct passes; Sigellia Valley of the Kings, 5 Valley of the Queens, 5

Wadi Sarga, 165 Women, as writers, 21 Yaḥyā b. Hilāl, 166, 167, 179, 182

Plates Page 289 → Page 288 →1. O.BM EA 31805. В© Trustees of the British Museum (photograph J. Cromwell). Page 290 → 2. O.Col. inv. 154. В© Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University in the City of New York. Page 291 → 3. O.Col. inv. 160. В© Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University in the City of New York. Page 292 → 4. O.Durom inv. 1951.24. В© Reproduced by permission of Durham University Museums. Page 293 → 5. O.Fitz. E.GA.6377.1943. В© The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Page 294 → 6. O.Fitz. E.P.533. В© The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Page 295 → 7. O.Kelsey inv. 25262. В© Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. 8. O.Kelsey inv. 25077. В© Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. Page 296 → 9. O.BM EA 44848. В© Trustees of the British Museum (photograph J. Cromwell). 10. O.Bodl.Copt.Inscr. 297 В© Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.